I believe that, after the consecration, there is no more bread and wine. The gifts are changed into the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit.

My EO uncle says: "The Roman Catholic Church believes when the bread and wine are consecrated their substance no longer remains, but is wholly transformed into the body and blood of Christ. This is opposed to the Orthodox view that after the consecration the bread and wine remain with the body and blood of Christ."

I've always taken Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky as a good source of teaching and he says the contrary in his book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology:

"In the Mystery of the Eucharist, at the time when the priest, invoking the Holy Spirit upon the offered Gifts, blesses them with the prayer to God the Father: “Make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ; and that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing them by Thy Holy Spirit” — the bread and wine actually are changed into the Body and Blood by the coming down of the Holy Spirit. After this moment, although our eyes see bread and wine on the Holy Table, in their very essence, invisibly for sensual eyes, this is the true Body and true Blood of the Lord Jesus, only under the “forms” of bread and wine."

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.[...]Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.

I'm not planning on changing my opinion, but, I was wondering how prevalent my uncle's view is amongst the Eastern Orthodox.

I think the Orthodox are comfortable with varying explanation of these things. The underlying teaching is common to us all. But we are happy to accommodate several theories as to how things operate. These remain theories. They remain fluid. We can hold them in balance and not feel the need to choose one and throw the others away.

The manner of the change in the Bread and Wine...?

That it changes noboby doubts...

But the way of it....? We are fine with any number of theories about the way - impanation, consubsubstantion, transubstantiation.... all of them can be found in the Holy Fathers through the centuries. It's not a problem.

I suppose what I am saying is that it is not very worthwhile to strive to find a rigidity in Orthodoxy which is not there on this particular matter.

My personal belief? I should be clear....

I do not believe in consubstantiation.

I do not believe in transubstantiation.

I do not believe in impanation.

Like the rest of Orthodoxy, I DO NOT KNOW.

The manner of what takes place is a mystery which God has not revealed to us.

Something to ponder...................Pope Saint Gelasius wrote an encyclical-"About the Two Natures." He was writing against Eutyches and Nestorius who taught that in the incarnation the human nature of Christ was absorbed in the divine nature.

Pope Gelasius wrote:

"The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a divine thing, because by it we are made partakers of the divine nature. Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries."

Notice how clear he is with this teaching - the substance of the bread and wine does not cease to exist.

Again though I have to say that this is really not crucially important to the Orthodox. He may be right. He may be wrong.

Thank you, Father. I agree, it is a mystery. I don't know how it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. However, I wouldn't say that the bread and wine remain because they changed by the Holy Spirit according to the epiclesis in the Liturgy. How they change is a mystery, but, they do change.

Thank you, Father. I agree, it is a mystery. I don't know how it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. However, I wouldn't say that the bread and wine remain because they changed by the Holy Spirit according to the epiclesis in the Liturgy. How they change is a mystery, but, they do change.

They could very well change. I don't know. The theory of transubstantiation is not very old in Orthodoxy -about 400 years, a result of the Western European struggle between Catholics and Protestants. But it has the benefit of assuring people, very concretely, of the presence of our Lord. What is the teaching of the Coptic Church Fathers?

what i understand (i may be wrong) is that the Body and Blood is allowed by God to still look like bread and wine so that we have the courage to consume it. i don't think we have any strict teaching either as to whether any bread or wine remains.but it treated as completely holy.

so if a kid eats a sweet after Holy Communion and then it drops from the mouth onto the floor, the sweet is burnt, not thrown in the trash. we also don't do anything that might make us bleed or spit after Holy Communion (so going swimming is out) and we don't chew on seeds (the ones where u spit out the husk while getting the seed from inside). these are traditions which are passed down among the people, the priest doesn't preach to us about that, but we pick it up as we go along.

Thank you, Father. I agree, it is a mystery. I don't know how it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. However, I wouldn't say that the bread and wine remain because they changed by the Holy Spirit according to the epiclesis in the Liturgy. How they change is a mystery, but, they do change.

They could very well change. I don't know. The theory of transubstantiation is not very old in Orthodoxy -about 400 years, a result of the Western European struggle between Catholics and Protestants. But it has the benefit of assuring people, very concretely, of the presence of our Lord. What is the teaching of the Coptic Church Fathers?

I don't know the teachings of the post-schism Fathers. At every Liturgy the priest says: "Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath; that this is the Life-giving Body that Your Only-Begotten Son, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ took from our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Mother of God, Saint Mary."

"Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350). [Emphasis mine.]

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.[...]Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.

The holy synod of Jerusalem had no problem using the word "transubstantiation" but it used a variety of words.... transmutation, change, transubstantiation, conversion, transformation...

Quote

. . .the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord . . . Source:http://www.cresourcei.org/creeddositheus.html

But the Jerusalem document continues on to reject the Roman Catholic understanding of transubstantiation. It is important to take note of this rejection:

"Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord"

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.[...]Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.

The holy synod of Jerusalem had no problem using the word "transubstantiation" but it used a variety of words.... transmutation, change, transubstantiation, conversion, transformation...

Quote

. . .the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord . . . Source:http://www.cresourcei.org/creeddositheus.html

But the Jerusalem document continues on to reject the Roman Catholic understanding of transubstantiation. It is important to take note of this rejection:

"Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord"

The Catholic Church does not explain the manner either. It simply says THAT a change has occurred.

The Catholic Church does not explain the manner either. It simply says THAT a change has occurred.

Transubstantiation means that a substance has been changed. It's in the word.

Yes. A real and total change has occurred. That does not tell you how, does not tell you why, does not even tell you when ...All it says is that where there was once bread and wine, there is now the precious Body and pure Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church does not explain the manner either. It simply says THAT a change has occurred.

Transubstantiation means that a substance has been changed. It's in the word.

Yes. A real and total change has occurred. That does not tell you how, does not tell you why, does not even tell you when ...All it says is that where there was once bread and wine, there is now the precious Body and pure Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Is the statement below not taken as infallible teaching from the Council of Trent? Did Trent and the Pope and the Magisterium teach error?

Transubstantiation - "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation."

The Catholic Church does not explain the manner either. It simply says THAT a change has occurred.

Transubstantiation means that a substance has been changed. It's in the word.

Yes. A real and total change has occurred. That does not tell you how, does not tell you why, does not even tell you when ...All it says is that where there was once bread and wine, there is now the precious Body and pure Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Is the statement below not taken as infallible teaching from the Council of Trent? Did Trent and the Pope and the Magisterium teach error?

Transubstantiation - "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation

Exactly. There is a real change. The bread and wine are no more accept in appearance. The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are there in reality.

The Catholic Church does not explain the manner either. It simply says THAT a change has occurred.

Transubstantiation means that a substance has been changed. It's in the word.

Yes. A real and total change has occurred. That does not tell you how, does not tell you why, does not even tell you when ...All it says is that where there was once bread and wine, there is now the precious Body and pure Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Is the statement below not taken as infallible teaching from the Council of Trent? Did Trent and the Pope and the Magisterium teach error?

Transubstantiation - "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation

Exactly. There is a real change. The bread and wine are no more accept in appearance. The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are there in reality.

One notes that the change is not 100% real. It is only a partial change with the bread and wine. Transubstantiation occurs but transpeciation does not occur.

The Catholic Church does not explain the manner either. It simply says THAT a change has occurred.

Transubstantiation means that a substance has been changed. It's in the word.

Yes. A real and total change has occurred. That does not tell you how, does not tell you why, does not even tell you when ...All it says is that where there was once bread and wine, there is now the precious Body and pure Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Is the statement below not taken as infallible teaching from the Council of Trent? Did Trent and the Pope and the Magisterium teach error?

Transubstantiation - "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation

Exactly. There is a real change. The bread and wine are no more accept in appearance. The Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are there in reality.

One notes that the change is not 100% real. It is only a partial change with the bread and wine. Transubstantiation occurs but transpeciation does not occur.

"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing [metalavon] them by Thy Holy Spirit, Amen (3)."

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance. Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior," but do not believe the substance is changed.

"Transubstantiation is a Latin and Western," Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing [metalavon] them by Thy Holy Spirit, Amen (3)."

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance. Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior," but do not believe the substance is changed.

"Transubstantiation is a Latin and Western," Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

How does essence differ from substance? Are not both English translations of the Greek word, ousia?

« Last Edit: December 27, 2011, 07:57:41 AM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing [metalavon] them by Thy Holy Spirit, Amen (3)."

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance. Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior," but do not believe the substance is changed.

"Transubstantiation is a Latin and Western," Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

How does essence differ from substance? Are not both English translations of the Greek word, ousia?

Substance means the essential part of a thing that makes it what it is...in other words, its essence.

"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing [metalavon] them by Thy Holy Spirit, Amen (3)."

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance. Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior," but do not believe the substance is changed.

"Transubstantiation is a Latin and Western," Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

I thought substance and essence were the same. Coessential, consubstantial, of one essence...

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing [metalavon] them by Thy Holy Spirit, Amen (3)."

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance. Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior," but do not believe the substance is changed.'"Transubstantiation is a Latin and Western," Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

How does essence differ from substance? Are not both English translations of the Greek word, ousia?

Good question. The Latin version of the Nicene Creed uses a form of "consubstantia" in translation of the Greek "homoousios", so I thought substance and ousia (translated as essence into English) meant the same thing.

"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing [metalavon] them by Thy Holy Spirit, Amen (3)."

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance. Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior," but do not believe the substance is changed.

"Transubstantiation is a Latin and Western," Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

Wasn't the term "metousiosis" used in one of the Ecumenical councils? I think I heard that said somewhere.

I don't know what we are suppose to say and what we aren't, but I do see alot of Orthodox clergy make use of the term Transubstantiation anyway. I don't know why they do this, but I do hear the term among us alot.

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

1. The substance is annihilated and replaced by the substance of Christ.

Thomas Aquinas doesn't teach that the bread and wine are annihilated:

"The substance of the bread or wine, after the consecration, remains neither under the sacramental species, nor elsewhere; yet it does not follow that it is annihilated; for it is changed into the body of Christ; just as if the air, from which fire is generated, be not there or elsewhere, it does not follow that it is annihilated."

1. The substance is annihilated and replaced by the substance of Christ.

Thomas Aquinas doesn't teach that the bread and wine are annihilated:

"The substance of the bread or wine, after the consecration, remains neither under the sacramental species, nor elsewhere; yet it does not follow that it is annihilated; for it is changed into the body of Christ; just as if the air, from which fire is generated, be not there or elsewhere, it does not follow that it is annihilated."

[Emphasis mine.]

That's interesting. The substance of the bread is still there but it has been rearranged or reconfigured to become the substance of Christ?

But the question still remains --- it is only a partial change because the species (accidents) of the bread does not change. So --- how do the accidents of Christ fit into this? Are they co-existent with the accidents of the bread and wine?

The Church may not have officially designated any language as being the official language of the Church, but all the writings of the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synods (Councils, to use the Western term), which documented the Church's doctrine, were originally written in Greek. So the Greek language is the primary method to examine when seeking to determine more exactly Church theology.

1. The substance is annihilated and replaced by the substance of Christ.

Thomas Aquinas doesn't teach that the bread and wine are annihilated:

"The substance of the bread or wine, after the consecration, remains neither under the sacramental species, nor elsewhere; yet it does not follow that it is annihilated; for it is changed into the body of Christ; just as if the air, from which fire is generated, be not there or elsewhere, it does not follow that it is annihilated."

[Emphasis mine.]

That's interesting. The substance of the bread is still there but it has been rearranged or reconfigured to become the substance of Christ?

But the question still remains --- it is only a partial change because the species (accidents) of the bread does not change. So --- how do the accidents of Christ fit into this? Are they co-existent with the accidents of the bread and wine?

I'm just guessing... Maybe Christ's accidents are not there like in Revelation 5:6 is says:

"And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth."

Christ had the accidents of a lamb in that passage.

In 1 Corinthians 10:4 "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ."

Christ had the accidents of a rock in that passage. Remember, this is just a guess. I could be wrong.

The Church may not have officially designated any language as being the official language of the Church, but all the writings of the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synods (Councils, to use the Western term), which documented the Church's doctrine, were originally written in Greek. So the Greek language is the primary method to examine when seeking to determine more exactly Church theology.

All the Church Fathers? How strange. I was under the impression they hadn't all been born yet.

The Church may not have officially designated any language as being the official language of the Church, but all the writings of the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synods (Councils, to use the Western term), which documented the Church's doctrine, were originally written in Greek. So the Greek language is the primary method to examine when seeking to determine more exactly Church theology.

Sts. Ambrose, John Cassian, etc. would be quite surprised that they don't count as Church Fathers since they wrote in Latin.

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

The Church may not have officially designated any language as being the official language of the Church, but all the writings of the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synods (Councils, to use the Western term), which documented the Church's doctrine, were originally written in Greek. So the Greek language is the primary method to examine when seeking to determine more exactly Church theology.

All the Church Fathers? How strange. I was under the impression they hadn't all been born yet.

Nice.

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I think this is just another example of where Orthodox and Catholics, or Chalcedonians (Orthodox and Catholic) and Oriental are saying the same things in different ways. We surely agree on several of the same premises, perhaps the Catholics over emphasize the mechanics of the process, which is generally the difference between Latin and Orthodox theology, the Latins come from a more scientific approach, Orthodox seem to be a bit more poetic. However, in spirit, Catholics and Orthodox most definitely agree on most theology.

The only difference I would say is concrete rather then semantics is that I understand Transubstantiation to explain that at a single moment in time, the Consecrated Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood, whereas in Orthodox generally it is said that the entire Divine Liturgy, beginning to end, its a process of becoming the Body and Blood, and there is no true instant moment of change where we can say this is or is not the actual Body and Blood of Christ.

Of course I do have a question for the Eastern Orthodox. I understand that in the Tewahedo Tradition (and perhaps the Orientals as a whole but I can only speak for my own jurisdiction) that the Godhead of the Word is truly Present in the Offering after Consecration. I am not fully familiar with the Eastern elaborations on the distinction between the Energies and Essence of God, we in Ethiopia do believe the Godhead is Immutable however it has been explained to me that the Ethiopian fathers interpret Energies in a more verb, less noun sense then the Eastern Orthodox tend to, which is why the Eastern Orthodox tend to over-emphasize the distinction. That being said, does the Eastern Orthodox teach that the Divine Essence is truly Present in the Holy Communion or is it as with the other Divine Mysteries, God's Energies (i.e., active Grace)?

If the EO teaches it is Energies and not Essence present in the Offering, that would be another concrete rather then semantic difference, as the Latins reject the distinction doctrine. I understand the Ethiopian fathers to ride the middle, not to explain the Godhead as being necessarily mutable and yet not allowing the Godhead to necessarily be known in the Latin scholastic sense.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I think this is just another example of where Orthodox and Catholics, or Chalcedonians (Orthodox and Catholic) and Oriental are saying the same things in different ways. We surely agree on several of the same premises, perhaps the Catholics over emphasize the mechanics of the process, which is generally the difference between Latin and Orthodox theology, the Latins come from a more scientific approach, Orthodox seem to be a bit more poetic. However, in spirit, Catholics and Orthodox most definitely agree on most theology.

The only difference I would say is concrete rather then semantics is that I understand Transubstantiation to explain that at a single moment in time, the Consecrated Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood, whereas in Orthodox generally it is said that the entire Divine Liturgy, beginning to end, its a process of becoming the Body and Blood, and there is no true instant moment of change where we can say this is or is not the actual Body and Blood of Christ.

Of course I do have a question for the Eastern Orthodox. I understand that in the Tewahedo Tradition (and perhaps the Orientals as a whole but I can only speak for my own jurisdiction) that the Godhead of the Word is truly Present in the Offering after Consecration. I am not fully familiar with the Eastern elaborations on the distinction between the Energies and Essence of God, we in Ethiopia do believe the Godhead is Immutable however it has been explained to me that the Ethiopian fathers interpret Energies in a more verb, less noun sense then the Eastern Orthodox tend to, which is why the Eastern Orthodox tend to over-emphasize the distinction. That being said, does the Eastern Orthodox teach that the Divine Essence is truly Present in the Holy Communion or is it as with the other Divine Mysteries, God's Energies (i.e., active Grace)?

If the EO teaches it is Energies and not Essence present in the Offering, that would be another concrete rather then semantic difference, as the Latins reject the distinction doctrine. I understand the Ethiopian fathers to ride the middle, not to explain the Godhead as being necessarily mutable and yet not allowing the Godhead to necessarily be known in the Latin scholastic sense.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Energy is the Godhead (Divine Being) as it can be communicated (communed). I hope this helps

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I think this is just another example of where Orthodox and Catholics, or Chalcedonians (Orthodox and Catholic) and Oriental are saying the same things in different ways. We surely agree on several of the same premises, perhaps the Catholics over emphasize the mechanics of the process, which is generally the difference between Latin and Orthodox theology, the Latins come from a more scientific approach, Orthodox seem to be a bit more poetic. However, in spirit, Catholics and Orthodox most definitely agree on most theology.

The only difference I would say is concrete rather then semantics is that I understand Transubstantiation to explain that at a single moment in time, the Consecrated Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood, whereas in Orthodox generally it is said that the entire Divine Liturgy, beginning to end, its a process of becoming the Body and Blood, and there is no true instant moment of change where we can say this is or is not the actual Body and Blood of Christ.

Of course I do have a question for the Eastern Orthodox. I understand that in the Tewahedo Tradition (and perhaps the Orientals as a whole but I can only speak for my own jurisdiction) that the Godhead of the Word is truly Present in the Offering after Consecration. I am not fully familiar with the Eastern elaborations on the distinction between the Energies and Essence of God, we in Ethiopia do believe the Godhead is Immutable however it has been explained to me that the Ethiopian fathers interpret Energies in a more verb, less noun sense then the Eastern Orthodox tend to, which is why the Eastern Orthodox tend to over-emphasize the distinction. That being said, does the Eastern Orthodox teach that the Divine Essence is truly Present in the Holy Communion or is it as with the other Divine Mysteries, God's Energies (i.e., active Grace)?

If the EO teaches it is Energies and not Essence present in the Offering, that would be another concrete rather then semantic difference, as the Latins reject the distinction doctrine. I understand the Ethiopian fathers to ride the middle, not to explain the Godhead as being necessarily mutable and yet not allowing the Godhead to necessarily be known in the Latin scholastic sense.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Energy is the Godhead (Divine Being) as it can be communicated (communed). I hope this helps

I would not say that the Holy Gifts are only the energies of the God-Man and not His full and utter divinity. I may be wrong but I would fiercely resist that idea.

Are there any scholarly/theological books or essays written by Orthodox Christians or the Church Fathers that discuss this topic?

Well, I remember Saint Symeon the New Theologian wrote something which touches on this...

"The grace of the Spirit, also called the fire of the Deity, belongs to ourGod and Savior by nature, essentially. But his Body does not have thesame origin, for it comes from the holy and all-pure flesh of the Theotokos,from her all-spotless blood. In assuming it from her, He made it into Hisown....Ever since then, the Son of God and of the All-pure imparts to thesaints, that which proceeds from the nature and the essence of hisco-eternal Father, the grace of the Spirit, that is, divinity; andfrom the nature and essence of her who really gave birth to Him, He givesthem the Flesh which He assumed from her."

"Forgiveness of sin and participation in life are bestowed on us not only inthe bread and wine of communion, but in the divinity which attends themand mysteriously mingles with them without confusion ...If Christ isGod, His holy flesh is no longer mere flesh, but flesh and God inseparableand yet without confusion visible in the flesh, that is, the bread, to thebodily eyes. In His divinity He is invisible to the eyes of the body but isperceived with the eyes of the soul."

Energy is the Godhead (Divine Being) as it can be communicated (communed). I hope this helps

I would not say that the Holy Gifts are only the energies of the God-Man and not His full and utter divinity. I may be wrong but I would fiercely resist that idea.

,Are there any scholarly/theological books or essays written by Orthodox Christians or the Church Fathers that discuss this topic?

Cudgelling my over-cudgelled brains, I cannot think of any. I cannot imagine that any Church Father would not see the Holy Gifts as the full and complete Jesus Christ, the same as He was, true God and true man, walking the hills of Palestine, and appearing to the Apostles after His resurrection.

"For just as the bread which comes from the earth, having received the invocation of God, is no longer ordinary bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so our bodies, having received the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, because they have the hope of the resurrection."

-Five Books on the Unmasking and Refutation of the Falsely named Gnosis Book 4:18 4-5, circa 180 A.D.

"...Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected."

"Rightly then, do we believe that the bread consecrated by the word of God has been made over into the Body of the God the Word. For that Body was, as to its potency bread; but it has been consecrated by the lodging there of the Word, who pitched His tent in the flesh."

The Great Catechism [37: 9-13]

As you have stated Father Ambrose, there are many ways in which the Fathers have attempted to describe the mystery. There is no consensus, especially regarding consubstantiation.

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I think this is just another example of where Orthodox and Catholics, or Chalcedonians (Orthodox and Catholic) and Oriental are saying the same things in different ways. We surely agree on several of the same premises, perhaps the Catholics over emphasize the mechanics of the process, which is generally the difference between Latin and Orthodox theology, the Latins come from a more scientific approach, Orthodox seem to be a bit more poetic. However, in spirit, Catholics and Orthodox most definitely agree on most theology.

The only difference I would say is concrete rather then semantics is that I understand Transubstantiation to explain that at a single moment in time, the Consecrated Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood, whereas in Orthodox generally it is said that the entire Divine Liturgy, beginning to end, its a process of becoming the Body and Blood, and there is no true instant moment of change where we can say this is or is not the actual Body and Blood of Christ.

Of course I do have a question for the Eastern Orthodox. I understand that in the Tewahedo Tradition (and perhaps the Orientals as a whole but I can only speak for my own jurisdiction) that the Godhead of the Word is truly Present in the Offering after Consecration. I am not fully familiar with the Eastern elaborations on the distinction between the Energies and Essence of God, we in Ethiopia do believe the Godhead is Immutable however it has been explained to me that the Ethiopian fathers interpret Energies in a more verb, less noun sense then the Eastern Orthodox tend to, which is why the Eastern Orthodox tend to over-emphasize the distinction. That being said, does the Eastern Orthodox teach that the Divine Essence is truly Present in the Holy Communion or is it as with the other Divine Mysteries, God's Energies (i.e., active Grace)?

If the EO teaches it is Energies and not Essence present in the Offering, that would be another concrete rather then semantic difference, as the Latins reject the distinction doctrine. I understand the Ethiopian fathers to ride the middle, not to explain the Godhead as being necessarily mutable and yet not allowing the Godhead to necessarily be known in the Latin scholastic sense.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Energy is the Godhead (Divine Being) as it can be communicated (communed). I hope this helps

I would not say that the Holy Gifts are only the energies of the God-Man and not His full and utter divinity. I may be wrong but I would fiercely resist that idea.

Christ, the Archetype of the perfected man, never laughed, there being no evidence in Scripture of His having had a sense of humor.- Abp. Chrysostom of Etna

Don't you find that illogical?

That's intended as a joke and parody of overly pious religious people with no sense of humor. I thought the quote is so absurd that it's self-evident. Also, the quote is taken intentionally out of context. I and His Grace take a lot more positive view on humor.

Christ, the Archetype of the perfected man, never laughed, there being no evidence in Scripture of His having had a sense of humor.- Abp. Chrysostom of Etna

Don't you find that illogical?

That's intended as a joke and parody of overly pious religious people with no sense of humor. I thought the quote is so absurd that it's self-evident. Also, the quote is taken intentionally out of context. I and His Grace take a lot more positive view on humor.

With increasing devotion to the Laughing Christ by charismatics, I think that virtue lies in the middle, not in the extremes.When I left Roman Catholicism in the early 1990's, many Catholic priests and bishops used humor inappropriately in their sermons.Some had to begin their sermons with jokes. It got to be tiresome.

Back on topic: I want to thank those for quoting the Church Fathers on the Holy Eucharist.Being raised a Catholic, and having studied about the accidents of Bread and Wine, I am grateful for the clarification given by the Holy Fathers of Orthodoxy.

While Fathers' seem to conflict each other on the issue, is there any sort of gut feeling consensus nowadays? Do the present day Orthodox tend to look some interpretation more favorably than others?

When in doubt, look at the liturgical hymnography and prayers of the Church. These represent and proclaim what the Church teaches. Most good prayer books have the Pre- and Post-Communion Prayers in them; and a look at the hymns and prayers of the Divine Liturgy, including those intoned by the priest in the altar will give you the answers.

While Fathers' seem to conflict each other on the issue, is there any sort of gut feeling consensus nowadays? Do the present day Orthodox tend to look some interpretation more favorably than others?

When in doubt, look at the liturgical hymnography and prayers of the Church. These represent and proclaim what the Church teaches. Most good prayer books have the Pre- and Post-Communion Prayers in them; and a look at the hymns and prayers of the Divine Liturgy, including those intoned by the priest in the altar will give you the answers.

I don't think the hymnography will give answer to this question. Our liturgies most certainly assure that bread and wine are turned into Body and Blood but beyond that they are fairly agnostic. We don't sing about transsubstantation or consubstantation during services.

I don't think the hymnography will give answer to this question. Our liturgies most certainly assure that bread and wine are turned into Body and Blood but beyond that they are fairly agnostic. We don't sing about transsubstantation or consubstantation during services.

Which is my point.

We know that the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood. Anything else is speculation, and we should accept that certain things of God will remain mysteries forever, beyond the capacity of mere human minds. If our greatest saints and Fathers couldn't fully explain it, then we should be content with this.

I don't think the hymnography will give answer to this question. Our liturgies most certainly assure that bread and wine are turned into Body and Blood but beyond that they are fairly agnostic. We don't sing about transsubstantation or consubstantation during services.

Which is my point.

We know that the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood. Anything else is speculation, ....

Does this include the speculation that the bread and wine remain as bread and wine in substance?

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I think this is just another example of where Orthodox and Catholics, or Chalcedonians (Orthodox and Catholic) and Oriental are saying the same things in different ways. We surely agree on several of the same premises, perhaps the Catholics over emphasize the mechanics of the process, which is generally the difference between Latin and Orthodox theology, the Latins come from a more scientific approach, Orthodox seem to be a bit more poetic. However, in spirit, Catholics and Orthodox most definitely agree on most theology.

The only difference I would say is concrete rather then semantics is that I understand Transubstantiation to explain that at a single moment in time, the Consecrated Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood, whereas in Orthodox generally it is said that the entire Divine Liturgy, beginning to end, its a process of becoming the Body and Blood, and there is no true instant moment of change where we can say this is or is not the actual Body and Blood of Christ.

Of course I do have a question for the Eastern Orthodox. I understand that in the Tewahedo Tradition (and perhaps the Orientals as a whole but I can only speak for my own jurisdiction) that the Godhead of the Word is truly Present in the Offering after Consecration. I am not fully familiar with the Eastern elaborations on the distinction between the Energies and Essence of God, we in Ethiopia do believe the Godhead is Immutable however it has been explained to me that the Ethiopian fathers interpret Energies in a more verb, less noun sense then the Eastern Orthodox tend to, which is why the Eastern Orthodox tend to over-emphasize the distinction. That being said, does the Eastern Orthodox teach that the Divine Essence is truly Present in the Holy Communion or is it as with the other Divine Mysteries, God's Energies (i.e., active Grace)?

If the EO teaches it is Energies and not Essence present in the Offering, that would be another concrete rather then semantic difference, as the Latins reject the distinction doctrine. I understand the Ethiopian fathers to ride the middle, not to explain the Godhead as being necessarily mutable and yet not allowing the Godhead to necessarily be known in the Latin scholastic sense.

stay blessed,habte selassie

I think that the EO believes that through the Holy Eucharist we partake of the divine energies.

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

why don`t you translate it than?

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

How is this not the same as the Roman Catholic teaching?

If it is not common bread then what is it? Truly it is something that we recognize as Bread...that is Catholic teaching.

If it is not common wine then what is it? Truly it is something that we recognize as Wine...that is Catholic teaching.

You neglect to mention the substance of the uncommon Bread and uncommon Wine...what is it?

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what? Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed. The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven.

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

How is this not the same as the Roman Catholic teaching?

If it is not common bread then what is it? Truly it is something that we recognize as Bread...that is Catholic teaching.

If it is not common wine then what is it? Truly it is something that we recognize as Wine...that is Catholic teaching.

M.

And all that is good. But you still have the problem of "accidents" as part of the explanation.

Quote

You neglect to mention the substance of the uncommon Bread and uncommon Wine...what is it?

Where did I fail to mention the substance? It is right there. Did you miss it? It is the Body of Christ in the form of food for the faithful. However, there are no "accidents" that remain, as He is not only the Lamb of God but the Bread from Heaven in truth.

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

How is this not the same as the Roman Catholic teaching?

If it is not common bread then what is it? Truly it is something that we recognize as Bread...that is Catholic teaching.

If it is not common wine then what is it? Truly it is something that we recognize as Wine...that is Catholic teaching.

M.

And all that is good. But you still have the problem of "accidents" as part of the explanation.

Quote

You neglect to mention the substance of the uncommon Bread and uncommon Wine...what is it?

Where did I fail to mention the substance? It is right there. Did you miss it? It is the Body of Christ in the form of food for the faithful. However, there are no "accidents" that remain, as He is not only the Lamb of God but the Bread from Heaven in truth.

As long as we can say that it still looks and tastes like bread and still looks and tastes like wine, we are talking about the same thing.

Then we can hope we speak of the same thing when we speak of the substantial divinity come down as food from heaven.

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

How is this not the same as the Roman Catholic teaching?

If it is not common bread then what is it? Truly it is something that we recognize as Bread...that is Catholic teaching.

If it is not common wine then what is it? Truly it is something that we recognize as Wine...that is Catholic teaching.

M.

And all that is good. But you still have the problem of "accidents" as part of the explanation.

Quote

You neglect to mention the substance of the uncommon Bread and uncommon Wine...what is it?

Where did I fail to mention the substance? It is right there. Did you miss it? It is the Body of Christ in the form of food for the faithful. However, there are no "accidents" that remain, as He is not only the Lamb of God but the Bread from Heaven in truth.

As long as we can say that it still looks and tastes like bread and still looks and tastes like wine, we are talking about the same thing.

Then we can hope we speak of the same thing when we speak of the substantial divinity come down as food from heaven.

Mary, are you posting here on FI to correct a misconception about your Catholic faith, or are you posting here for a different reason?

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

How is this not the same as the Roman Catholic teaching?

If it is not common bread then what is it? Truly it is something that we recognize as Bread...that is Catholic teaching.

If it is not common wine then what is it? Truly it is something that we recognize as Wine...that is Catholic teaching.

M.

And all that is good. But you still have the problem of "accidents" as part of the explanation.

Quote

You neglect to mention the substance of the uncommon Bread and uncommon Wine...what is it?

Where did I fail to mention the substance? It is right there. Did you miss it? It is the Body of Christ in the form of food for the faithful. However, there are no "accidents" that remain, as He is not only the Lamb of God but the Bread from Heaven in truth.

As long as we can say that it still looks and tastes like bread and still looks and tastes like wine, we are talking about the same thing.

Then we can hope we speak of the same thing when we speak of the substantial divinity come down as food from heaven.

Mary, are you posting here on FI to correct a misconception about your Catholic faith, or are you posting here for a different reason?

I post here for two reasons. One to correct a perceived error. That is what I am doing this time.

In the past I have posted using sources from within the Orthodox tradition to try to get clarification on a matter that is of interest to me.

I am rarely punished for the former but now and then I am punished for the latter: even though I make no comparison nor do I use any but Orthodox sources.

I gave up trying to figure out what makes the hammer fall. My intentions on this area of the Forum are NEVER to do comparisons: I only ever seek to correct OR explore inside the whole of the Orthodox tradition...to the best of my ability and the abilities of my correspondents here.

You also sometimes try to undermine the dominant belief among the Orthodox with presenting proofs from the Orthodox sources that argue for beliefs foreign to mainstream Orthodoxy (and similar to yours).

That Romanian Bishop who took your eucharist was an Orthodox source but his beliefs were (are?) far from Orthodox.

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what? Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed. The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven.

explain yourself.

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what? Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed. The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven.

explain yourself.

I am very sorry that you don't understand. I can live with that. I have already explained myself enough.

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what? Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed. The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven.

explain yourself.

I am very sorry that you don't understand. I can live with that. I have already explained myself enough.

I don`t think you understand it eighter.I see this often in Orthodoxy.What a shame.

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what? Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed. The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven.

explain yourself.

I am very sorry that you don't understand. I can live with that. I have already explained myself enough.

I don`t think you understand it eighter.I see this often in Orthodoxy.What a shame.

lol. Because of your limitations you don't think another understands it. My time is valuable and I won't waste it. There is an obvious comprehension problem from your side as it is spelled out in black and white. I don't see how you can possibly not understand.

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what? Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed. The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven.

explain yourself.

I am very sorry that you don't understand. I can live with that. I have already explained myself enough.

I don`t think you understand it eighter.I see this often in Orthodoxy.What a shame.

lol. Because of your limitations you don't think another understands it. My time is valuable and I won't waste it. There is an obvious comprehension problem from your side as it is spelled out in black and white. I don't see how you can possibly not understand.

If you would understand it than you would know how to explain it to a limited person such as myself.Borrowing syntagms or copying them does not make one understanding them, which seems to be your case here through your inability to explain it.I`ve been an Orthodox all my life and I have interacted oftenly with Orthodox people who could not explain themselves.You do look like one of those.

« Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 01:00:10 PM by Azul »

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

There is then also the very famous passage from St. Cyril of Jerusalem from his Mystagogy:

"9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart', partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine'. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:--To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what? Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed. The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven.

explain yourself.

I am very sorry that you don't understand. I can live with that. I have already explained myself enough.

I don`t think you understand it eighter.I see this often in Orthodoxy.What a shame.

lol. Because of your limitations you don't think another understands it. My time is valuable and I won't waste it. There is an obvious comprehension problem from your side as it is spelled out in black and white. I don't see how you can possibly not understand.

If you would understand it than you would know how to explain it to a limited person such as myself.Borrowing syntagms or copying them does not make one understanding them, which seems to be your case here through your inability to explain it.I`ve been an Orthodox all my life and I have interacted oftenly with Orthodox people who could not explain themselves.You do look like one of those.

With all due respect Azul, I think it is you who are having issues understanding. FatherHLL clearly explained, and I for one, understood. Therefore, it's not his explanation that is lacking, it is your understanding.

I'm sorry you have encountered a number of people who can't explain to your liking their beliefs.

You know, I once had a professor in college who was at the top of his game.....and yet, I never understood the concepts he was explaining in class. I am certain he was correct....and he did his best to explain with charts and graphs and slides....many, if not most, students "got it" and excelled in his class. I however, never did. It was my own limitation, not his.

Therefore, I would take a good look at myself before I accused a priest of not understanding a concept that is central to Orthodoxy.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what? Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed. The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven.

explain yourself.

I am very sorry that you don't understand. I can live with that. I have already explained myself enough.

I don`t think you understand it eighter.I see this often in Orthodoxy.What a shame.

lol. Because of your limitations you don't think another understands it. My time is valuable and I won't waste it. There is an obvious comprehension problem from your side as it is spelled out in black and white. I don't see how you can possibly not understand.

If you would understand it than you would know how to explain it to a limited person such as myself.Borrowing syntagms or copying them does not make one understanding them, which seems to be your case here through your inability to explain it.I`ve been an Orthodox all my life and I have interacted oftenly with Orthodox people who could not explain themselves.You do look like one of those.

With all due respect Azul, I think it is you who are having issues understanding. FatherHLL clearly explained, and I for one, understood. Therefore, it's not his explanation that is lacking, it is your understanding.

I'm sorry you have encountered a number of people who can't explain to your liking their beliefs.

You know, I once had a professor in college who was at the top of his game.....and yet, I never understood the concepts he was explaining in class. I am certain he was correct....and he did his best to explain with charts and graphs and slides....many, if not most, students "got it" and excelled in his class. I however, never did. It was my own limitation, not his.

Therefore, I would take a good look at myself before I accused a priest of not understanding a concept that is central to Orthodoxy.

Really what did you get?

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

St. Gregory Nyssa seems to be able to state it in a very direct fashion:

"The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ."

-"Orations and Sermons" [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.

Thanks, Mary, although I'm still confused. Others talking about heavenly bread and wine wasn't helping me, either. Would that mean that Jesus' body and blood is actually bread and wine, but heavenly? Is it a way to say that Christ is truly present, but it isn't literally flesh and blood?

I asked my Orthodox priest, "If not by transubstantiation, then how does it become Christ's body and blood?" He answered, "Grace." Okay... But what does that mean? Is it enough to say Christ is truly present, or is there something more?

St. Gregory Nyssa seems to be able to state it in a very direct fashion:

"The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ."

-"Orations and Sermons" [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.

Thanks, Mary, although I'm still confused. Others talking about heavenly bread and wine wasn't helping me, either. Would that mean that Jesus' body and blood is actually bread and wine, but heavenly? Is it a way to say that Christ is truly present, but it isn't literally flesh and blood?

Exactly!Thank you.That is what i didn`t understood eighter and the person who said that refuses to explain himself which makes me thing that he didn`t understood it eighter.

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what? Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed. The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven.

explain yourself.

I am very sorry that you don't understand. I can live with that. I have already explained myself enough.

I don`t think you understand it eighter.I see this often in Orthodoxy.What a shame.

lol. Because of your limitations you don't think another understands it. My time is valuable and I won't waste it. There is an obvious comprehension problem from your side as it is spelled out in black and white. I don't see how you can possibly not understand.

If you would understand it than you would know how to explain it to a limited person such as myself.Borrowing syntagms or copying them does not make one understanding them, which seems to be your case here through your inability to explain it.I`ve been an Orthodox all my life and I have interacted oftenly with Orthodox people who could not explain themselves.You do look like one of those.

With all due respect Azul, I think it is you who are having issues understanding. FatherHLL clearly explained, and I for one, understood. Therefore, it's not his explanation that is lacking, it is your understanding.

I'm sorry you have encountered a number of people who can't explain to your liking their beliefs.

You know, I once had a professor in college who was at the top of his game.....and yet, I never understood the concepts he was explaining in class. I am certain he was correct....and he did his best to explain with charts and graphs and slides....many, if not most, students "got it" and excelled in his class. I however, never did. It was my own limitation, not his.

Therefore, I would take a good look at myself before I accused a priest of not understanding a concept that is central to Orthodoxy.

Really what did you get?

I apparently don't "get" your question. What are you asking?

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

I really want to understand what this means. Would it be right to say it's not common bread because Christ is truly present, but it's not flesh, either? But this is just me stabbing in the dark. Maybe it's my background, but I'm trying not to make any assumptions and so it all feels very vague to me.

St. Gregory Nyssa seems to be able to state it in a very direct fashion:

"The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ."

-"Orations and Sermons" [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.

Thanks, Mary, although I'm still confused. Others talking about heavenly bread and wine wasn't helping me, either. Would that mean that Jesus' body and blood is actually bread and wine, but heavenly? Is it a way to say that Christ is truly present, but it isn't literally flesh and blood?

I asked my Orthodox priest, "If not by transubstantiation, then how does it become Christ's body and blood?" He answered, "Grace." Okay... But what does that mean? Is it enough to say Christ is truly present, or is there something more?

I think St. Justin Martyr may say it in a way that is most clear:

"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."

"And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this Cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing [metalavon] them by Thy Holy Spirit, Amen (3)."

The Orthodox Church's ecclesiastical term for the "change" is "metousiosis," which means a change of essence, not a change of substance. Quotes above may have not translated "metousiosis" properly. Yes, the Orthodox believe the gifts are (in essence), "the very Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior," but do not believe the substance is changed.

"Transubstantiation is a Latin and Western," Roman Catholic term, not used in Orthodox ecclesiology.

How does essence differ from substance? Are not both English translations of the Greek word, ousia?

Substance means the essential part of a thing that makes it what it is...in other words, its essence.

Actually, substance means "the thing that is", which is not the same as essence, which means "what a thing is". Now the concept of substance, or the thing that is, includes the concept of essence, or what a thing is, but substance is not identical with essence. Essence is part of what a substance is.

I have agree with Maria. To say that the substance of the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ, while the accidents remain, is not to describe how this change occurs in all of its details. All we are saying is the obvious. It becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, but looks like bread and wine. How God accomplishes this is beyond human understanding. In a like manner, how God created the heavens and the earth is beyond human comprehension. But we can still say that it happened.

Look, the bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. His Body is food indeed and His Blood drink indeed. The Aristotelian explanation of the RC Church that only "accidents" remain is not in line with Orthodox theology. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

why don`t you translate it than?

Translate what? Christ says my Body is food indeed and My Blood drink indeed. The change is from the food and drink of earth to the food and drink of heaven.

explain yourself.

I am very sorry that you don't understand. I can live with that. I have already explained myself enough.

I don`t think you understand it eighter.I see this often in Orthodoxy.What a shame.

lol. Because of your limitations you don't think another understands it. My time is valuable and I won't waste it. There is an obvious comprehension problem from your side as it is spelled out in black and white. I don't see how you can possibly not understand.

If you would understand it than you would know how to explain it to a limited person such as myself.Borrowing syntagms or copying them does not make one understanding them, which seems to be your case here through your inability to explain it.I`ve been an Orthodox all my life and I have interacted oftenly with Orthodox people who could not explain themselves.You do look like one of those.

With all due respect Azul, I think it is you who are having issues understanding. FatherHLL clearly explained, and I for one, understood. Therefore, it's not his explanation that is lacking, it is your understanding.

I'm sorry you have encountered a number of people who can't explain to your liking their beliefs.

You know, I once had a professor in college who was at the top of his game.....and yet, I never understood the concepts he was explaining in class. I am certain he was correct....and he did his best to explain with charts and graphs and slides....many, if not most, students "got it" and excelled in his class. I however, never did. It was my own limitation, not his.

Therefore, I would take a good look at myself before I accused a priest of not understanding a concept that is central to Orthodoxy.

Really what did you get?

I apparently don't "get" your question. What are you asking?

You said you got it, that you understood what FatherHLL is saying.I asked you to tell me what you understood.

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

I have agree with Maria. To say that the substance of the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ, while the accidents remain, is not to describe how this change occurs in all of its details. All we are saying is the obvious. It becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, but looks like bread and wine. How God accomplishes this is beyond human understanding. In a like manner, how God created the heavens and the earth is beyond human comprehension. But we can still say that it happened.

We can also say that within the laws of creation, things are not always what they seem to be. And in that analogous sense we can understand that bread and wine, after the prayers of consecration, are also not what they seem to be as well.

We can parse those things out to the best of our ability in scientific or philosophic terms, or we can simply accept that appearance and perceptions are axiomatically fallible, and things are not always what they seem to be.

In both the case of science and of simple acceptance, we are talking about an exercise of faith since the essence of things can never be known in their absolute and fundamental existence.

As long as we, in our science and philosophy, are making "stuff" out of other "stuff" we are not in a position to know the essence of any of the "stuff" that we make.

At the moment when we find that we can make "stuff" out of absolutely nothing at all...well then...we will know that the game has changed...

It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

I really want to understand what this means. Would it be right to say it's not common bread because Christ is truly present, but it's not flesh, either? But this is just me stabbing in the dark. Maybe it's my background, but I'm trying not to make any assumptions and so it all feels very vague to me.

No, it is flesh. From the pre-communion prayers, "I believe this is truly Thy most pure Body and this is truly Thine own precious blood". From practical experience we know it doesn't look like the Body and Blood, but regardless of appearances it is.

It seems that where some people are stumbling is that Orthodoxy is fine with not going any further than this. Papist makes a very good point in analogizing it to Creation. "I believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible." I have absolutely no clue *how* He did so, nor do I particularly care. The fact is enough. And Orthodoxy takes the same attitude to the Eucharist. The "how" has not been revealed, and is probably not comprehensible to us even if it was. But it is the Body and Blood of Christ.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

I really want to understand what this means. Would it be right to say it's not common bread because Christ is truly present, but it's not flesh, either? But this is just me stabbing in the dark. Maybe it's my background, but I'm trying not to make any assumptions and so it all feels very vague to me.

No, it is truly His flesh. He said so. This is why John 6 becomes so important. He is the Bread from heaven, and thus it should not surprise us that His Body as given in Communion is Bread. As the cherubic hymn for holy saturday makes clear, He comes in the flesh, not as when He walked on earth, but rather "comes...to be given as food (bread) for the faithful." His flesh is truly food--Bread. The Bread after epiklesis is no longer earthly food, but is the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ substantially and fully. It is truly His Body in the form of food (bread), not because "accidents" remain, but because He is the Bread from Heaven and gives His Flesh as Food for the faithful.

I too have trouble understanding the difference between the Catholic teaching and the EO teaching. Catholics: The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Orthodox: The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Catholics: It still looks like, feels like, acts like, and tastes like bread and wine. Orthodox: It still looks like, feels like, acts like, and tastes like bread and wine.

Catholics: We don't know the details of how this happens because it is beyond human comprehension. Orthodox: We don't konw the details of how this happens because it is beyond human comprehension.

Catholics: We call this mystery transubstantion, because it changes into the body and blood of Christ.Orthodox: That's heresy.

I'm not trying to down-play the real differences that we have, and believe me I understand that we have plenty. Nor am I trying to debate (this is the faith issues forum). I'm just looking for clarification because I don't understand why many EOs think we have a genuine difference on this matter. Can any EOs help me out?

Look, it is important to understand the integral and rather beautiful theology in all this. The Old Testament calls wine the "blood" of the vine. Therefore it should not surprise us that the Blood of the True Vine is not coarse blood, but rather truly made "drink indeed."

St. Gregory Nyssa seems to be able to state it in a very direct fashion:

"The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ."

-"Orations and Sermons" [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.

Thanks, Mary, although I'm still confused. Others talking about heavenly bread and wine wasn't helping me, either. Would that mean that Jesus' body and blood is actually bread and wine, but heavenly? Is it a way to say that Christ is truly present, but it isn't literally flesh and blood?

Exactly!Thank you.That is what i didn`t understood eighter and the person who said that refuses to explain himself which makes me thing that he didn`t understood it eighter.

I'm not sure what eighter is (probably a new Jimmy Buffet song), but I had a good Calculus III professor in college. He did not bother to try and explain things to people who have the level of understanding of Algebra II because they should not have been in the class anyway. You cannot explain Calculus III to persons who have not learned Calculus I or II no matter how hard you try. It is a waste of time, as they find it to be incomprehensible nonsense rather than as a highly valuable pragma. It is up to them to gain the understanding required and then come back and enroll later. I suggest you go learn some more background information necessary to understand this and then come back when you are through.

I too have trouble understanding the difference between the Catholic teaching and the EO teaching. Catholics: The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Orthodox: The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Catholics: It still looks like, feels like, acts like, and tastes like bread and wine. Orthodox: It still looks like, feels like, acts like, and tastes like bread and wine.

Catholics: We don't know the details of how this happens because it is beyond human comprehension. Orthodox: We don't konw the details of how this happens because it is beyond human comprehension.

Catholics: We call this mystery transubstantion, because it changes into the body and blood of Christ.Orthodox: That's heresy.

I'm not trying to down-play the real differences that we have, and believe me I understand that we have plenty. Nor am I trying to debate (this is the faith issues forum). I'm just looking for clarification because I don't understand why many EOs think we have a genuine difference on this matter. Can any EOs help me out?

Yes. The last part is a misunderstanding. We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy. Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with. Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it.

You said you got it, that you understood what FatherHLL is saying.I asked you to tell me what you understood.

It goes something like this:

The bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

There's a reason these things are called the "Holy Mysteries"....because we cannot explain them 100% scientifically. They seem illogical to our underdeveloped wisdom.

This is where "faith" comes in.

You either believe, or you don't.

This leads me to a great example I had in the car driving home last Thursday with my nephew. We had gone to see the Rembrandt exhibit in our local Art Institute. While the paintings were beautiful....that's all they were, beautiful paintings. In the gift shop I picked up a book which showcased religious "art". I found an icon of Christ and told them THIS is the CHrist we know and love. The paintings we had just seen may have been of any man with a beard. In no way was he extraordinary or divine. I explained how Orthodox icons focus on the spiritual nature, not the physical.

This conversation kept going on the long drive home. When I mentioned about the Halo of Christ in our icons...and the symbolism of "I AM" depicted in the halo, referring to the burning bush and Moses....the boy got confused and couldn't understand.

"How is it that Christ "is" God, and yet the "Son of God""? Great question for a young mind.

So, I went in to my simple explanation of the Holy Trinity. That God is the candle. The flame is God the Father. The light given off is God the Son (Christ the Light of the world) and the heat that you feel, but do not see is God the Holy Spirit - the invisible Spirit of Truth and Giver of Life. WIthout the flame you would have neither light nor warmth, both come from the flame....and yet, all three are part of the one candle.

....so now...it's up to him to either believe in the Holy Trinity or not. That's the best explanation I could give to something that is a "mystery".

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

You said you got it, that you understood what FatherHLL is saying.I asked you to tell me what you understood.

It goes something like this:

The bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

There's a reason these things are called the "Holy Mysteries"....because we cannot explain them 100% scientifically. They seem illogical to our underdeveloped wisdom.

This is where "faith" comes in.

You either believe, or you don't.

This leads me to a great example I had in the car driving home last Thursday with my nephew. We had gone to see the Rembrandt exhibit in our local Art Institute. While the paintings were beautiful....that's all they were, beautiful paintings. In the gift shop I picked up a book which showcased religious "art". I found an icon of Christ and told them THIS is the CHrist we know and love. The paintings we had just seen may have been of any man with a beard. In no way was he extraordinary or divine. I explained how Orthodox icons focus on the spiritual nature, not the physical.

This conversation kept going on the long drive home. When I mentioned about the Halo of Christ in our icons...and the symbolism of "I AM" depicted in the halo, referring to the burning bush and Moses....the boy got confused and couldn't understand.

"How is it that Christ "is" God, and yet the "Son of God""? Great question for a young mind.

So, I went in to my simple explanation of the Holy Trinity. That God is the candle. The flame is God the Father. The light given off is God the Son (Christ the Light of the world) and the heat that you feel, but do not see is God the Holy Spirit - the invisible Spirit of Truth and Giver of Life. WIthout the flame you would have neither light nor warmth, both come from the flame....and yet, all three are part of the one candle.

....so now...it's up to him to either believe in the Holy Trinity or not. That's the best explanation I could give to something that is a "mystery".

Liza, you hit at the heart of the matter--a Mystery, ultimately, you either believe it or you don't. We can go reductio ad absurdum with these things because we ultimately have to understand that God is infinite and we are finite. God's understanding is infinite and ours is finite, albeit on various levels. Some of us are able to go deeper than others on matters, but ultimately we all have limitations as the finite delving into the infinite. When we find ourselves facing a lack of understanding on any level, we simply have to accept divinely revealed truth as precisely that.

I too have trouble understanding the difference between the Catholic teaching and the EO teaching. Catholics: The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Orthodox: The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Catholics: It still looks like, feels like, acts like, and tastes like bread and wine. Orthodox: It still looks like, feels like, acts like, and tastes like bread and wine.

Catholics: We don't know the details of how this happens because it is beyond human comprehension. Orthodox: We don't konw the details of how this happens because it is beyond human comprehension.

Catholics: We call this mystery transubstantion, because it changes into the body and blood of Christ.Orthodox: That's heresy.

I'm not trying to down-play the real differences that we have, and believe me I understand that we have plenty. Nor am I trying to debate (this is the faith issues forum). I'm just looking for clarification because I don't understand why many EOs think we have a genuine difference on this matter. Can any EOs help me out?

Yes. The last part is a misunderstanding. We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy. Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with. Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it.

Can you expand on the problem with the term "accidents"? My understanding of accidents is that they are simply the outward appearance and behavior of a thing. Since Orthodox agree that the outward appearance and behavior of the Eucharist remain that of bread and wine, I do not understand why they object to one saying the accidents remain after the consecration. BTW, thank you for your thoughtful answers. You really are being charitable about this.

You said you got it, that you understood what FatherHLL is saying.I asked you to tell me what you understood.

It goes something like this:

The bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

There's a reason these things are called the "Holy Mysteries"....because we cannot explain them 100% scientifically. They seem illogical to our underdeveloped wisdom.

This is where "faith" comes in.

You either believe, or you don't.

This leads me to a great example I had in the car driving home last Thursday with my nephew. We had gone to see the Rembrandt exhibit in our local Art Institute. While the paintings were beautiful....that's all they were, beautiful paintings. In the gift shop I picked up a book which showcased religious "art". I found an icon of Christ and told them THIS is the CHrist we know and love. The paintings we had just seen may have been of any man with a beard. In no way was he extraordinary or divine. I explained how Orthodox icons focus on the spiritual nature, not the physical.

This conversation kept going on the long drive home. When I mentioned about the Halo of Christ in our icons...and the symbolism of "I AM" depicted in the halo, referring to the burning bush and Moses....the boy got confused and couldn't understand.

"How is it that Christ "is" God, and yet the "Son of God""? Great question for a young mind.

So, I went in to my simple explanation of the Holy Trinity. That God is the candle. The flame is God the Father. The light given off is God the Son (Christ the Light of the world) and the heat that you feel, but do not see is God the Holy Spirit - the invisible Spirit of Truth and Giver of Life. WIthout the flame you would have neither light nor warmth, both come from the flame....and yet, all three are part of the one candle.

....so now...it's up to him to either believe in the Holy Trinity or not. That's the best explanation I could give to something that is a "mystery".

Well done. Either a person is willing to accept that there are certain things beyond human comprehension or they are not. If there is an infinite God, then he most certainly is beyond human comprehension.

Yes. The last part is a misunderstanding. We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy. Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with. Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it.

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine. Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

I too have trouble understanding the difference between the Catholic teaching and the EO teaching. Catholics: The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Orthodox: The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Catholics: It still looks like, feels like, acts like, and tastes like bread and wine. Orthodox: It still looks like, feels like, acts like, and tastes like bread and wine.

Catholics: We don't know the details of how this happens because it is beyond human comprehension. Orthodox: We don't konw the details of how this happens because it is beyond human comprehension.

Catholics: We call this mystery transubstantion, because it changes into the body and blood of Christ.Orthodox: That's heresy.

I'm not trying to down-play the real differences that we have, and believe me I understand that we have plenty. Nor am I trying to debate (this is the faith issues forum). I'm just looking for clarification because I don't understand why many EOs think we have a genuine difference on this matter. Can any EOs help me out?

Yes. The last part is a misunderstanding. We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy. Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with. Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it.

Can you expand on the problem with the term "accidents"? My understanding of accidents is that they are simply the outward appearance and behavior of a thing. Since Orthodox agree that the outward appearance and behavior of the Eucharist remain that of bread and wine, I do not understand why they object to one saying the accidents remain after the consecration. BTW, thank you for your thoughtful answers. You really are being charitable about this.

I want to emphasize that I am not trying to debate you on this point. I am only trying to understand your point.

Yes. The last part is a misunderstanding. We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy. Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with. Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it.

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine. Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

No, an accident is a nonessential property or quality of an entity.

But...this may be irrelevant. It is RC theologians that used "accident," but not the council of Trent.

Trent's definition: "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation".

It does not mention accidents. That is good. In fact, it appears that although theologians defined it as such, the bishops at Trent purposely altered it to be more correct by saying "species." That is a good thing from my point of view. The only thing about this definition that I find essentially problematic is the word "remaining."

Although transubstantiation is not of itself a horrible word, its first instance of use was 1124 by Hildebert of Tours. So it is not an "early" term, but again, not problematic.

Regardless (don't fall off your chair out of shock)--on an official level, we may have less of a gap on this issue than is often thought. I think that this is because Orthodox tend to "weigh" the writings of RCC theologians more heavily than the RCC does. On reflection, this may not be fair. We Orthodox cannot call everything said by somebody "RC patristics" and thereby refute the official position of the RC communion.

Yes. The last part is a misunderstanding. We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy. Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with. Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it.

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine. Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

No, an accident is a nonessential property or quality of an entity.

There are a multitude of flavors and components of something we call bread.

Which one of those so-called tastes/flavors/textures is an ESSENTIAL property that would define the essence of what we call bread...in all places and at all times?

Yes. I am correct and you have missed the mark.

It is not the end of the world. It would be nice to have agreement, but not ESSENTIAL for the truth...

ElijahMaria, it is highly inappropriate for you, a ByzCatholic to accuse an Orthodox priest of "missing the mark", especially in the Faith Issues Forum. Thank you for your cooperation. - LizaSymonenko FI co-moderator.

Yes. The last part is a misunderstanding. We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy. Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with. Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it.

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine. Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

No, an accident is a nonessential property or quality of an entity.

But...this may be irrelevant. It is RC theologians that used "accident," but not the council of Trent.

Trent's definition: "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation".

It does not mention accidents. That is good. In fact, it appears that although theologians defined it as such, the bishops at Trent purposely altered it to be more correct by saying "species." That is a good thing from my point of view. The only thing about this definition that I find essentially problematic is the word "remaining."

Although transubstantiation is not of itself a horrible word, its first instance of use was 1124 by Hildebert of Tours. So it is not an "early" term, but again, not problematic.

Regardless (don't fall off your chair out of shock)--on an official level, we may have less of a gap on this issue than is often thought. I think that this is because Orthodox tend to "weigh" the writings of RCC theologians more heavily than the RCC does. On reflection, this may not be fair. We Orthodox cannot call everything said by somebody "RC patristics" and thereby refute the official position of the RC communion.

Is the word "remaining" all right if it's understood simply to mean that it has the physical properties of bread and wine, but it is still fully and completely the body and blood of Christ? This is what I always understood transubstantiation to mean. And since I thought it was not Orthodox teaching, I was trying to differentiate the Orthodox position somehow.

Yes. The last part is a misunderstanding. We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy. Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with. Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it.

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine. Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

No, an accident is a nonessential property or quality of an entity.

There are a multitude of flavors and components of something we call bread.

Which one of those so-called tastes/flavors/textures is an ESSENTIAL property that would define the essence of what we call bread...in all places and at all times?

Yes. I am correct and you have missed the mark.

It is not the end of the world. It would be nice to have agreement, but not ESSENTIAL for the truth...

Really, this is what you focused in on in the entire post? I cannot believe this is your response to my post. I just cannot. Of all the things that I said in that post, you ignore the rest and even cut off the first point in mid-point as I stated that one of my points may be irrelevent. I have never been unfair to you. This is an insult, Mary, it really is. Don't be suprised when people fail to extend an olive branch in the future to you when you stomp and spit on it.

Yes. The last part is a misunderstanding. We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy. Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with. Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it.

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine. Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

No, an accident is a nonessential property or quality of an entity.

There are a multitude of flavors and components of something we call bread.

Which one of those so-called tastes/flavors/textures is an ESSENTIAL property that would define the essence of what we call bread...in all places and at all times?

Yes. I am correct and you have missed the mark.

It is not the end of the world. It would be nice to have agreement, but not ESSENTIAL for the truth...

Really, this is what you focused in on in the entire post? I cannot believe this is your response to my post. I just cannot. Of all the things that I said in that post, you ignore the rest and even cut off the first point in mid-point as I stated that one of my points may be irrelevent. I have never been unfair to you. This is an insult, Mary, it really is. Don't be suprised when people fail to extend an olive branch in the future to you when you stomp and spit on it.

Please don't be offended. I never meant this to be an insult to you in any way. I thought the wink at the end would indicate that I believe this small point to be important but that it does not detract from the fulness of truth upon which we do indeed agree.

Yes. The last part is a misunderstanding. We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy. Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with. Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it.

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine. Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

No, an accident is a nonessential property or quality of an entity.

There are a multitude of flavors and components of something we call bread.

Which one of those so-called tastes/flavors/textures is an ESSENTIAL property that would define the essence of what we call bread...in all places and at all times?

Yes. I am correct and you have missed the mark.

It is not the end of the world. It would be nice to have agreement, but not ESSENTIAL for the truth...

Really, this is what you focused in on in the entire post? I cannot believe this is your response to my post. I just cannot. Of all the things that I said in that post, you ignore the rest and even cut off the first point in mid-point as I stated that one of my points may be irrelevent. I have never been unfair to you. This is an insult, Mary, it really is. Don't be suprised when people fail to extend an olive branch in the future to you when you stomp and spit on it.

PS: I also thought that you would notice that I purposefully selected quotations from the holy fathers that were similar to your own in elements of language and in spirit. I thought that would indicate to you that we only disagree on one element of the language in this discussion.

Yes. The last part is a misunderstanding. We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy. Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with. Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it.

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine. Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

No, an accident is a nonessential property or quality of an entity.

But...this may be irrelevant. It is RC theologians that used "accident," but not the council of Trent.

Trent's definition: "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation".

It does not mention accidents. That is good. In fact, it appears that although theologians defined it as such, the bishops at Trent purposely altered it to be more correct by saying "species." That is a good thing from my point of view. The only thing about this definition that I find essentially problematic is the word "remaining."

Although transubstantiation is not of itself a horrible word, its first instance of use was 1124 by Hildebert of Tours. So it is not an "early" term, but again, not problematic.

Regardless (don't fall off your chair out of shock)--on an official level, we may have less of a gap on this issue than is often thought. I think that this is because Orthodox tend to "weigh" the writings of RCC theologians more heavily than the RCC does. On reflection, this may not be fair. We Orthodox cannot call everything said by somebody "RC patristics" and thereby refute the official position of the RC communion.

Thank you Father. Now what exactly is the problem with the word "accident"?

You said you got it, that you understood what FatherHLL is saying.I asked you to tell me what you understood.

It goes something like this:

The bread and wine become something other than common bread and wine. In the mystery the common bread becomes the Bread from Heaven, which is the Body of Christ as He Himself says, and the common fruit of the vine becomes the Fruit of the True Vine. It is truly Bread after the change, but not common bread any longer. It is truly the Fruit of the True Vine, but no longer common fruit of the vine.

There's a reason these things are called the "Holy Mysteries"....because we cannot explain them 100% scientifically. They seem illogical to our underdeveloped wisdom.

This is where "faith" comes in.

You either believe, or you don't.

This leads me to a great example I had in the car driving home last Thursday with my nephew. We had gone to see the Rembrandt exhibit in our local Art Institute. While the paintings were beautiful....that's all they were, beautiful paintings. In the gift shop I picked up a book which showcased religious "art". I found an icon of Christ and told them THIS is the CHrist we know and love. The paintings we had just seen may have been of any man with a beard. In no way was he extraordinary or divine. I explained how Orthodox icons focus on the spiritual nature, not the physical.

This conversation kept going on the long drive home. When I mentioned about the Halo of Christ in our icons...and the symbolism of "I AM" depicted in the halo, referring to the burning bush and Moses....the boy got confused and couldn't understand.

"How is it that Christ "is" God, and yet the "Son of God""? Great question for a young mind.

So, I went in to my simple explanation of the Holy Trinity. That God is the candle. The flame is God the Father. The light given off is God the Son (Christ the Light of the world) and the heat that you feel, but do not see is God the Holy Spirit - the invisible Spirit of Truth and Giver of Life. WIthout the flame you would have neither light nor warmth, both come from the flame....and yet, all three are part of the one candle.

....so now...it's up to him to either believe in the Holy Trinity or not. That's the best explanation I could give to something that is a "mystery".

You didn`t explain it clear eihter, but you explained it better than FatherHLL.Thank you.I personally can interpret what Christ said when he said he is the true bread from heaven and the true wine.I`m not sure what you or FatherHLL mean by it,as you left it wide open.. And if FatherHLL is level 3 I am level 4.

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

St. Gregory Nyssa seems to be able to state it in a very direct fashion:

"The bread is at first common bread; but when the mystery sanctifies it, it is called and actually becomes the Body of Christ."

-"Orations and Sermons" [Jaeger Vol 9, pp. 225-226] ca. 383 A.D.

Thanks, Mary, although I'm still confused. Others talking about heavenly bread and wine wasn't helping me, either. Would that mean that Jesus' body and blood is actually bread and wine, but heavenly? Is it a way to say that Christ is truly present, but it isn't literally flesh and blood?

Exactly!Thank you.That is what i didn`t understood eighter and the person who said that refuses to explain himself which makes me thing that he didn`t understood it eighter.

I'm not sure what eighter is (probably a new Jimmy Buffet song), but I had a good Calculus III professor in college. He did not bother to try and explain things to people who have the level of understanding of Algebra II because they should not have been in the class anyway. You cannot explain Calculus III to persons who have not learned Calculus I or II no matter how hard you try. It is a waste of time, as they find it to be incomprehensible nonsense rather than as a highly valuable pragma. It is up to them to gain the understanding required and then come back and enroll later. I suggest you go learn some more background information necessary to understand this and then come back when you are through.

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error. Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error. Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look. Good chance I won't do that again...

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another. Again, please forgive my lapse...

Yes. The last part is a misunderstanding. We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy. Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with. Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it.

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine. Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

No, an accident is a nonessential property or quality of an entity.

But...this may be irrelevant. It is RC theologians that used "accident," but not the council of Trent.

Trent's definition: "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation".

It does not mention accidents. That is good. In fact, it appears that although theologians defined it as such, the bishops at Trent purposely altered it to be more correct by saying "species." That is a good thing from my point of view. The only thing about this definition that I find essentially problematic is the word "remaining."

Although transubstantiation is not of itself a horrible word, its first instance of use was 1124 by Hildebert of Tours. So it is not an "early" term, but again, not problematic.

Regardless (don't fall off your chair out of shock)--on an official level, we may have less of a gap on this issue than is often thought. I think that this is because Orthodox tend to "weigh" the writings of RCC theologians more heavily than the RCC does. On reflection, this may not be fair. We Orthodox cannot call everything said by somebody "RC patristics" and thereby refute the official position of the RC communion.

Thank you Father. Now what exactly is the problem with the word "accident"?

Hi Papist.Basically the "nonessential property or quality" part. It being Bread is crucial to affirming Christ not just as Son of God, Redeemer, etc, but as the Bread from Heaven, i.e. not just someone who can be touched but as someone who can be ingested (in terms of absorption) and communed fully.

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error. Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error. Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look. Good chance I won't do that again...

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another. Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem. But I did bring up a point that is not addressed. Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma? Trent purposely avoided it. As I pointed out, this is a positive thing. It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma. If not, then I certainly did not sin. But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring. But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error. Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error. Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look. Good chance I won't do that again...

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another. Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem. But I did bring up a point that is not addressed. Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma? Trent purposely avoided it. As I pointed out, this is a positive thing. It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma. If not, then I certainly did not sin. But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring. But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.

Father,

I am indeed guilty of being lax in my use of language but I did not intend in ANY way to accuse you of sin. That is not part of my religious lexicon. If you choose to read it that way, I am sorry about that as well, but I have no control over that eventuality.

The language of "accidents" in the teaching concerning transubstantiation is not rejected by my Church and is now a common theological and technical term used in explaining the real presence in Eucharist.

I am afraid you still are not using it as my Church uses it so I really cannot continue discussing it here.

I can only refer you to the language of the holy fathers that I posted the other day:

9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart', partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine'. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:--To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

Yes. The last part is a misunderstanding. We don't call the term transubstantiation heresy. Although we don't prefer this word due to its extra trappings after Trent, it is not the term or previous understanding of transubstantiation that we have a problem with but the neo-Frankish doctrine of transubstantiation borrowed from high scholasticism that we have a problem with. Aristotelian accidents is our primary problem with it.

This is to a certain extent somewhat absurd, since all "accidents" tells us is that we are still going to "see" bread and wine, and "taste" bread and wine. Accidents tells us that things ARE not always what they SEEM to be.

I don't understand your difficulty with that...or anyone else's problem with it, for that matter.

No, an accident is a nonessential property or quality of an entity.

But...this may be irrelevant. It is RC theologians that used "accident," but not the council of Trent.

Trent's definition: "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation".

It does not mention accidents. That is good. In fact, it appears that although theologians defined it as such, the bishops at Trent purposely altered it to be more correct by saying "species." That is a good thing from my point of view. The only thing about this definition that I find essentially problematic is the word "remaining."

Although transubstantiation is not of itself a horrible word, its first instance of use was 1124 by Hildebert of Tours. So it is not an "early" term, but again, not problematic.

Regardless (don't fall off your chair out of shock)--on an official level, we may have less of a gap on this issue than is often thought. I think that this is because Orthodox tend to "weigh" the writings of RCC theologians more heavily than the RCC does. On reflection, this may not be fair. We Orthodox cannot call everything said by somebody "RC patristics" and thereby refute the official position of the RC communion.

Thank you Father. Now what exactly is the problem with the word "accident"?

Hi Papist.Basically the "nonessential property or quality" part. It being Bread is crucial to affirming Christ not just as Son of God, Redeemer, etc, but as the Bread from Heaven, i.e. not just someone who can be touched but as someone who can be ingested (in terms of absorption) and communed fully.

Interesting. I think I might be starting to get a glimpse of the difference. So for the Eastern Orthodox, while it may not be regular bread, it must be a kind of bread, heavenly bread? But let me continue this line of questioning. Does it have to be "heavenly bread" in the literal sense, meaning that it is like the manna from heaven? Or is the term "heavenly bread" used metaphorically because Christ called himself "bread from heaven"?

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error. Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error. Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look. Good chance I won't do that again...

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another. Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem. But I did bring up a point that is not addressed. Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma? Trent purposely avoided it. As I pointed out, this is a positive thing. It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma. If not, then I certainly did not sin. But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring. But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.

Father, to be honest, I've never really thought about it. My understanding of Transubstantiation is that it is a great mystey, beyond human understanding, in which the substance of the Eucharist, (what it is) becomes the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, while retaining the appearance and outward behavior of bread. That being said, there is no way in which the Eucharist can be called bread in the literal sense, because it is not bread in the literal sense. It is Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

But I did bring up a point that is not addressed. Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma? Trent purposely avoided it. As I pointed out, this is a positive thing. It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma. If not, then I certainly did not sin. But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring. But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.

This is an astute observation, often missed by both Orthodox and Catholics. The Tridentine definition of transubstantiation does not use the philosophical term "accident" but rather "appearance." I do not doubt that the Tridentine bishops believed the two terms to be synonymous; but it is not unimportant that they chose to use the non-philosophical term in the definition. They were not seeking to dogmatize Aristotelian metaphysics or any philosophical system. Nor were the Tridentine bishops seeking to "explain" the mystery of the eucharistic change; rather, they sought to state the mystery in light of Protestant presentations they deemed heterodox.

Interestingly the question what does transubstantiation mean is presently being discussed over at the Monachos forum. Given that I probably have a better grasp of Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation than most other Orthodox, I wrote a long comment describing what I believe the Catholic Church teaches (reproduced below):

Within the Catholic Church there are many construals of transubstantiation. This was true at the Council of Trent, and it is certainly the case today. The principal function of the Tridentine dogma was to exclude Protestant understandings of the Eucharist. It should not be read as dogmatizing a specific philosophical understanding of substance, accidents, matter, and existence. That's certainly not how the best Catholic theologians interpret and apply the dogma. So what is the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation trying to say? I propose the following:

(1) By the action of the divine Word, the elements of bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of the risen and glorified Jesus Christ. Latin theologians employ the category of "substance" to answer the commonsense question "What is that thing?" What is present on the altar before the consecration? Bread and wine. What is present on the altar after the consecration? Body and Blood. In other words, a substantial change (transubstantiation) has occurred.

(2) Because a substantial change has occurred, it is no longer appropriate to literally apply the words "bread" and "wine" to the Holy Gifts. This is the whole point in saying that the substance of the bread and wine have become the substance of the Body and Blood. By Latin apprehension, it would be wrong to point to the consecrated Host and say, "That is both bread and Body." That would be to misdescribe the eucharistic reality.

But if a change of substance has occurred, why is it that we only perceive bread and wine? It is here that Catholic theologians have invoked the distinction between substance and appearances (species): the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Christ, yet they still appear to be bread and wine. All of the sensible qualities (accidents) of the bread and wine remain intact. If a scientist (God forbid!) were to analyze the consecrated elements, he would discover that they are identical to bread and wine in every way. No chemical, material, or molecular change has occurred. This is a critical point to recognize, because it is at this point that many people, including many Catholics, get confused. They think that transubstantiation necessarily entails a chemical-material change in the elements, a change that God miraculously keeps hidden from us. But this is not what the doctrine says. This is not what Thomas Aquinas says. The Lutheran Hermann Sasse has even accused Aquinas of being a semi-Calvinist, because of his insistence that Christ is not locally present in the Sacrament. But I'm sure that many Catholics over the centuries have believed that the eucharistic transformation involves a material change in the elements. How else to explain the violence of Catholic/Protestant polemic in the 16th century? Some Orthodox have also believed this: see, e.g., Vladimir Moss, "Dialogue Between an Orthodox and an Ecumenist."

The distinction between substance (what the Sacrament truly is) and appearance (what we perceive) is hardly an invention of the Latin Church. Consider this passage from St Cyril of Jerusalem:

Quote

These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], "strengthen thine heart," partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."

Or this passage from St Theophylact, commenting on Matt 26:26:

Quote

"By saying, 'This is My Body,' He shows that the bread which is sanctified on the altar is the Lords Body Itself, and not a symbolic type. For He did not say, 'This is a type,' but 'This is My Body.' By an ineffable action it is changed, although it may appear to us as bread. Since we are weak and could not endure raw meat, much less human flesh, it appears as bread to us although it is indeed flesh."

Neither author explicitly employs the term "substance," but clearly the notion is implicit.

How can there be a change of substance without a change of the sensible qualities? Is this not nonsensical? That is the great problem posed by the doctrine of transubstantiation--and it is a real problem. Catholic theologians have struggled with this for centuries. The literature here is vast, but I commend to everyone this article by Fr Herbert McCabe: Eucharistic Change. Also see two blog articles I wrote about McCabe: "When Bread is not Bread" and "The Risen Christ and the Language of God." McCabe was one of the finest British theologians of the 20th century and a keen student of Thomas Aquinas. A comparison of the views of McCabe and those of Schmemann, Bulgakov, and Evdokimov might prove particularly illuminating.

In his book Orthodoxy Paul Evdokimov states that it was only until the 9th and 11th centuries that anyone in the Church, and specifically the Latin Church, seriously posed the questions "what?" and "how?" concerning the Holy Eucharist. I'm not sure if this is completely accurate; but once these questions are asked, it seems to me that something akin to transubstantiation, i.e., the assertion of the ontological transformation of the bread and wine, is a reasonable response consistent with the faith of the ancient Church. This would also explain why the Orthodox Church felt free to appropriate the language of transubstantiation when addressing Protestant eucharistic heresies. Thus Fr Michael Pomzansky in his Orthodox Dogmatic Theology:

Quote

In the Mystery of the Eucharist, at the time when the priest, invoking the Holy Spirit upon the offered Gifts, blesses them with the prayer to God the Father: "Make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ; and that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ; changing them by Thy Holy Spirit" — the bread and wine actually are changed into the Body and Blood by the coming down of the Holy Spirit. After this moment, although our eyes see bread and wine on the Holy Table, in their very essence, invisibly for sensual eyes, this is the true Body and true Blood of the Lord Jesus, only under the "forms" of bread and wine.

Thus the sanctified Gifts 1) are not only signs or symbols, reminding the faithful of the redemption, as the reformed Zwingli taught; and likewise, 2) it is not only by His "activity and power" ("dynamically") that Jesus Christ is present in them, as Calvin taught; and finally, 3) He is not present in the meaning only of "penetration," as the Lutherans teach (who recognize the co-presence of Christ "with the bread, under the form of bread, in the bread"); but the sanctified Gifts in the Mystery are changed or (a later term) "transubstantiated" into the true Body and true Blood of Christ, as the Saviour said "For My flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

This truth is expressed in the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in the following words: "We believe that in this sacred rite our Lord Jesus Christ is present not symbolically (typikos), not figuratively (eikonikos), not by an abundance of grace, as in the other Mysteries, not by a simple descent, as certain Fathers say about Baptism, and not through a "penetration" of the bread, so that the Divinity of the Word should "enter" into the bread offered for the Eucharist, as the followers of Luther explain it rather awkwardly and unworthily — but truly and actually, so that after the sanctification of the bread and wine, the bread is changed, transubstantiated, converted, transformed, into the actual true Body of the Lord, which was born in Bethlehem of the Ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, resurrected, ascended, sits at the right hand of God the Father, and is to appear in the clouds of heaven; and the wine is changed and transubstantiated into the actual true Blood of the Lord, which at the time of His suffering on the Cross was shed for the life of the world. Yet again, we believe that after the sanctification of the bread and wine there remains no longer the bread and wine themselves, but the very Body and Blood of the Lord, under the appearance and form of bread and wine."

Or as Evdokimov, himself a fierce critic of transubstantiation, states: "In summarizing the teaching of the Fathers, beyond any physical conversion, for the eyes of faith after the epiclesis, quite simply there is nothing else on the diskos and in the chalice except the body and blood of Christ."

In another post at Monachos I addressed the question whether transubstantiation is non-Orthodox. I reproduce my posting below:

Does transubstantiation explain the eucharistic transformation? At first glance it may certainly seem to, and no doubt many Latin theologians in the past have thought that it does. Certainly the many Eastern theologians in the past (and we are talking 500 years here) who have explicitly employed the term "transubstantiation" and the notion of substantial change did not understood it as an explanation or definition of the real presence. They employed it because they found it a useful way of speaking, especially as a way to distinguish Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist from various heterodox teachings.

Is transubstantiation alien to Orthodoxy? Yes, if it is understood as a philosophical explanation of the eucharistic change; but once that qualification is made, it clearly is not alien. Orthodox bishops, priests, theologians employed the notion of substantial change for centuries. They unabashedly used the term "transubstantiation." I have already mentioned the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem, which until fairly recently was highly regarded throughout the Orthodox world. The 1727 Council of Constantinople went so far as to declare: "As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word transubstantiation, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this mystery." In 1838 the decrees of the Council of Jerusalem were received by the Holy Synod of the Russian Church, with some minor modifications: specifically, the statement "the substance of the bread and wine no longer remain" was altered to "the very bread and wine no longer remain" and the phrase "under the accidents of the bread" was omitted. And as already mentioned in this thread, the term transubstantiation was incorporated into the catechetical teaching of the Russian Church in St Philaret's Longer Catechism, which eventually received the approval of all the Eastern patriarchs. In 1725 those elected to the office of bishop were required to affirm:

Quote

I do believe and understand that the Transubstantiation of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper is made, as the Eastern and ancient Russian doctors teach, by the influence and operation of the Holy Ghost at the invocation, when the bishop or priest prays to God the Father in these words, "Make therefore this bread the most honorable body of Thy Christ."

Whether this declaration is still a part of the ordination office I do not know, but it apparently was still a part of the office at the turn of the 20th century. (For a survey of Eastern reflection and teaching on the Eucharist from the 6th to the 20th century, see Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, chap. 4.)

Even as late as 1961 Panagiotes Trembelas could write in his Dogmatics of the Eastern Church: "We are in accord in this with the Roman Catholics in believing that in this marvelous transformation, although the exterior phenomena and the accidents of bread and wine remain, all their substance however is changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord." Eleven years later Archbishop Methodios Fouyas, in his book Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism, confirmed this judgment: "Roman and Orthodox teach that by the words spoken in the Holy Eucharist the species of bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, so that although these species have the outward qualities of bread and wine, essentially they are the Body and Blood of Christ."

Contemporary Orthodox theologians apparently now believe that substantial change is not the best way to speak of the eucharistic transformation (though given that my acquaintance with Orthodox theology is restricted to works written or translated into English, I do not know that this is in fact the case). I happen to agree. ... I hope to elaborate on my present opinions in a future posting, but let me say this at the moment: transubstantiation, especially when packaged with the liturgical practices of unleavened bread and infrequent communion (the latter no longer obtaining today), makes it more difficult to speak of the Divine Liturgy as eschatological banquet. I think this is the heart of Meyendorff's concern. Or to put it somewhat differently, the Incarnation is the descent of God to the world; the Eucharist is the ascent of the world into heaven. Because transubstantiation is so easily misunderstood as signifying the material change of the bread and wine, it becomes more difficult to speak of the eschatological nature both of the Divine Liturgy as a whole and specifically of the eucharistic change. But more on this later.

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error. Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error. Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look. Good chance I won't do that again...

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another. Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem. But I did bring up a point that is not addressed. Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma? Trent purposely avoided it. As I pointed out, this is a positive thing. It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma. If not, then I certainly did not sin. But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring. But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.

Father, to be honest, I've never really thought about it. My understanding of Transubstantiation is that it is a great mystey, beyond human understanding, in which the substance of the Eucharist, (what it is) becomes the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, while retaining the appearance and outward behavior of bread. That being said, there is no way in which the Eucharist can be called bread in the literal sense, because it is not bread in the literal sense. It is Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

This is a discussion that goes way beyond what we can accomplish here. But let me just give you a few things to think about. It is not about "literal vs. metaphorical." All is mysteriological. Someone asked me about this on another thread. literal and metaphorical are horribly simplistic ways to view Scripture or anything else of grace. Mysteriological refers to multivalence, that is, to several realities co-existing at the same time (hence why sacrament is called mysterion).

Consider the words of St. Nicholas Cavasilas, where he tells us that in Communion “Christ...gives men the Bread of life, and this Bread is nothing other than Himself...He upholds the wayfarer, and He is the Way; He is at once the inn upon the road and the end of the journey. When we fight, He fights by our side. When we dispute, He is the arbiter. And when we win the victory, He is the prize” (The Life in Christ, 1.1). God is able to change common food into Christ's Body because He first made His Body to be food for the faithful.

But you have to understand that in God's mysteriological multivalence, that the realities can all be simultaneously true, that is can be flesh as bread:

"...And he was in the midst, not as burning flesh, but as bread baking..."-the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp

With this we can better understand the words of St. Irenaeus of Lyons:“For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the communion and union of the flesh and spirit. For the bread, whichis produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation (epiclesis) of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist—consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly. So also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." (ANF 1.486)

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error. Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error. Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look. Good chance I won't do that again...

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another. Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem. But I did bring up a point that is not addressed. Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma? Trent purposely avoided it. As I pointed out, this is a positive thing. It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma. If not, then I certainly did not sin. But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring. But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.

Father, to be honest, I've never really thought about it. My understanding of Transubstantiation is that it is a great mystey, beyond human understanding, in which the substance of the Eucharist, (what it is) becomes the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, while retaining the appearance and outward behavior of bread. That being said, there is no way in which the Eucharist can be called bread in the literal sense, because it is not bread in the literal sense. It is Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

This is a discussion that goes way beyond what we can accomplish here. But let me just give you a few things to think about. It is not about "literal vs. metaphorical." All is mysteriological. Someone asked me about this on another thread. literal and metaphorical are horribly simplistic ways to view Scripture or anything else of grace. Mysteriological refers to multivalence, that is, to several realities co-existing at the same time (hence why sacrament is called mysterion).

Consider the words of St. Nicholas Cavasilas, where he tells us that in Communion “Christ...gives men the Bread of life, and this Bread is nothing other than Himself...He upholds the wayfarer, and He is the Way; He is at once the inn upon the road and the end of the journey. When we fight, He fights by our side. When we dispute, He is the arbiter. And when we win the victory, He is the prize” (The Life in Christ, 1.1). God is able to change common food into Christ's Body because He first made His Body to be food for the faithful.

But you have to understand that in God's mysteriological multivalence, that the realities can all be simultaneously true, that is can be flesh as bread:

"...And he was in the midst, not as burning flesh, but as bread baking..."-the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp

With this we can better understand the words of St. Irenaeus of Lyons:“For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the communion and union of the flesh and spirit. For the bread, whichis produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation (epiclesis) of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist—consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly. So also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity." (ANF 1.486)

Ok, thank you for explaing this further Father. You have been most helpful and charitable. Here is what I can conclude from this discussion. If FrHLL's description is an accurate portrayal of what the EO Church teaches, then we do not share a common faith on this matter after all. For the Catholic, the Eucharist is not bread and it can not be called bread unless we mean that in a metaphorical sense because, for Catholics, the Eucharist is Christ and nothing else. From the Orthodox persepective, it is Christ, but it is also some kind of bread (Heavenly Bread). Thus, we do not agree. My question then is this: Is FrHLL's understanding the generally accepted Eastern Orthodox view? Not that I doubt you FrHLL, but I have seen varying understadnings of Eastern Orthodox theoloogy from different people.

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error. Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error. Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look. Good chance I won't do that again...

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another. Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem. But I did bring up a point that is not addressed. Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma? Trent purposely avoided it. As I pointed out, this is a positive thing. It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma. If not, then I certainly did not sin. But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring. But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.

Father,

I am indeed guilty of being lax in my use of language but I did not intend in ANY way to accuse you of sin. That is not part of my religious lexicon. If you choose to read it that way, I am sorry about that as well, but I have no control over that eventuality.

The language of "accidents" in the teaching concerning transubstantiation is not rejected by my Church and is now a common theological and technical term used in explaining the real presence in Eucharist.

I am afraid you still are not using it as my Church uses it so I really cannot continue discussing it here.

I can only refer you to the language of the holy fathers that I posted the other day:

9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart', partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine'. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:--To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error. Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error. Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look. Good chance I won't do that again...

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another. Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem. But I did bring up a point that is not addressed. Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma? Trent purposely avoided it. As I pointed out, this is a positive thing. It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma. If not, then I certainly did not sin. But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring. But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.

Father,

I am indeed guilty of being lax in my use of language but I did not intend in ANY way to accuse you of sin. That is not part of my religious lexicon. If you choose to read it that way, I am sorry about that as well, but I have no control over that eventuality.

The language of "accidents" in the teaching concerning transubstantiation is not rejected by my Church and is now a common theological and technical term used in explaining the real presence in Eucharist.

I am afraid you still are not using it as my Church uses it so I really cannot continue discussing it here.

I can only refer you to the language of the holy fathers that I posted the other day:

9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart', partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine'. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:--To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

It is still bread , but not common bread.The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.We consume bread and partake of the divine energies.Therefore I think this is what FatherHLL might have ment when he said 'Bread from Heaven' , in an allegorical way, though...

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.

Fixed.

Perhaps you would like to fix this also :

From The Orthodox Confession of 1640

"Christ is now in heaven only and not on earth after that manner of the flesh wherein He bore it and lived in it when He was on earth; but after the sacramental manner, whereby He is present in the Holy Eucharist, the same Son of God, God and Man, is also on earth by way of TRANSUBSTANTIATION [kata metousiosis]. For the SUBSTANCE of the bread is changed into the SUBSTANCE of His holy body, and the SUBSTANCE of the wine into the SUBSTANCE of His precious blood.

"The priest must know that at the moment when he consecrates the gifts the SUBSTANCE itself of the bread and the SUBSTANCE of the wine are changed into the SUBSTANCE of the real body and blood of Christ through the operation of the Holy Ghost, whom the priest invokes at that time, consecrating this mystery by praying and saying,

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error. Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error. Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look. Good chance I won't do that again...

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another. Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem. But I did bring up a point that is not addressed. Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma? Trent purposely avoided it. As I pointed out, this is a positive thing. It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma. If not, then I certainly did not sin. But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring. But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.

Father,

I am indeed guilty of being lax in my use of language but I did not intend in ANY way to accuse you of sin. That is not part of my religious lexicon. If you choose to read it that way, I am sorry about that as well, but I have no control over that eventuality.

The language of "accidents" in the teaching concerning transubstantiation is not rejected by my Church and is now a common theological and technical term used in explaining the real presence in Eucharist.

I am afraid you still are not using it as my Church uses it so I really cannot continue discussing it here.

I can only refer you to the language of the holy fathers that I posted the other day:

9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart', partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine'. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:--To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

It is still bread , but not common bread.The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.We consume bread and partake of the divine energies.Therefore I think this is what FatherHLL might have ment when he said 'Bread from Heaven' , in an allegorical way, though...

If it's only "allegorically" bread, then it is not bread literally and we believe the same thing.

As already stated, it is no longer earthly bread (the "common bread" that was offered, as seen in my quote from St. Irenaeus above), it has been changed into the deified Body of Christ which is the Heavenly Bread, as seen also in St. Nicholas Cabasilas.

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error. Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error. Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look. Good chance I won't do that again...

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another. Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem. But I did bring up a point that is not addressed. Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma? Trent purposely avoided it. As I pointed out, this is a positive thing. It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma. If not, then I certainly did not sin. But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring. But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.

Father,

I am indeed guilty of being lax in my use of language but I did not intend in ANY way to accuse you of sin. That is not part of my religious lexicon. If you choose to read it that way, I am sorry about that as well, but I have no control over that eventuality.

The language of "accidents" in the teaching concerning transubstantiation is not rejected by my Church and is now a common theological and technical term used in explaining the real presence in Eucharist.

I am afraid you still are not using it as my Church uses it so I really cannot continue discussing it here.

I can only refer you to the language of the holy fathers that I posted the other day:

9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart', partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine'. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:--To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.

Fixed.

Perhaps you would like to fix this also :

From The Orthodox Confession of 1640

"Christ is now in heaven only and not on earth after that manner of the flesh wherein He bore it and lived in it when He was on earth; but after the sacramental manner, whereby He is present in the Holy Eucharist, the same Son of God, God and Man, is also on earth by way of TRANSUBSTANTIATION [kata metousiosis]. For the SUBSTANCE of the bread is changed into the SUBSTANCE of His holy body, and the SUBSTANCE of the wine into the SUBSTANCE of His precious blood.

"The priest must know that at the moment when he consecrates the gifts the SUBSTANCE itself of the bread and the SUBSTANCE of the wine are changed into the SUBSTANCE of the real body and blood of Christ through the operation of the Holy Ghost, whom the priest invokes at that time, consecrating this mystery by praying and saying,

The Confession of 1640, borrowed from Jesuit catechisms, was amended many times before it was received by anyone, including the two local councils most famous for amending it and only thereafter receiving it (the local synods of Iassy 1642 and Jerusalem 1672). Fyi, the Synod of 1672, although somtimes wrongly called "pan-Orthodox," had 8 bishops that were all part of the Holy Synod of Jerusalem, the rest being Archimandrites from Jerusalem with a few from other places).

The council of 1727, on the other hand, was fully Pan-Orthodox, and had this to say on the matter:

"It is right to believe and confess that the most mystic and all-holy rite and Eucharist of the holy Liturgy and bloodless sacrifice, which is for a memorial of Christ our God voluntarily sacrificed on our behalf, is celebrated in the following way. Leavened bread is offered and wine together with warm water is placed in the holy cup, and they are supernaturally changed, the bread into that life-giving body of the Lord and the wine into His precious blood, by the all-holy Spirit by means of the prayer and invocation of the priest which depends on the power of the words of the Lord... As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word metabole, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this Mystery."

As already stated, it is no longer earthly bread (the "common bread" that was offered, as seen in my quote from St. Irenaeus above), it has been changed into the deified Body of Christ which is the Heavenly Bread, as seen also in St. Nicholas Cabasilas.

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error. Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error. Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look. Good chance I won't do that again...

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another. Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem. But I did bring up a point that is not addressed. Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma? Trent purposely avoided it. As I pointed out, this is a positive thing. It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma. If not, then I certainly did not sin. But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring. But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.

Father,

I am indeed guilty of being lax in my use of language but I did not intend in ANY way to accuse you of sin. That is not part of my religious lexicon. If you choose to read it that way, I am sorry about that as well, but I have no control over that eventuality.

The language of "accidents" in the teaching concerning transubstantiation is not rejected by my Church and is now a common theological and technical term used in explaining the real presence in Eucharist.

I am afraid you still are not using it as my Church uses it so I really cannot continue discussing it here.

I can only refer you to the language of the holy fathers that I posted the other day:

9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart', partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine'. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:--To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

It is important to note that many of the seemingly 'diverse' theological postulations or even theologoumena which have developed separately in the east and the west since the great schism may seem on the surface to be 'church dividing issues.' However, this is not always the case. As stated previously the musings of this or that scholar, or even this or that saint, simply may not be reflective of the totality of the teachings of the Church - east or west.

It may be that one idea or the other simply may not have 'crossed over' from east to west or vice versa or may simply represent attempts to express the same, or substantially similar, concepts from different perspectives. Different nuances, languages and pre-conceived notions may preclude an honest examination of what is being discussed.

Now don't get me wrong. There are church dividing issues which are out there and remain unresolved. The institution of the modern papacy and the proper role of the Pope in a 'universal' church is, of course, the most significant.

Within Orthodoxy itself we have similar divisions of opinion over some teachings which are not universally accepted as dogma or doctrine, but neither are they heretical teachings or in grave error. The oft-debated topic of 'Toll Houses' comes to mind.

I wanted to put a note here publicly apologizing for the unfortunate phrasing I used in a note to you.

Missing the mark...in the context in which I inadvertently used it with you meant, in that context, to be in error. Sin is sin to me...missing the mark is and always will be error. Please forgive me for being lax however in not realizing how it would look. Good chance I won't do that again...

I do appreciate your kindnesses with me, and hope that we can return to that place again with one another. Again, please forgive my lapse...

M.

Mary, no problem. But I did bring up a point that is not addressed. Is or is not "accidents" a part of RC dogma? Trent purposely avoided it. As I pointed out, this is a positive thing. It seems to be just a phraseology of theologians and not of official RC dogma. If not, then I certainly did not sin. But it is curious in the Orthodox Faith forum for me to be accused of sinning/erring. But my major problem was that the point that I was making was that "accidents" is possibly not an RC dogma at all.

Father,

I am indeed guilty of being lax in my use of language but I did not intend in ANY way to accuse you of sin. That is not part of my religious lexicon. If you choose to read it that way, I am sorry about that as well, but I have no control over that eventuality.

The language of "accidents" in the teaching concerning transubstantiation is not rejected by my Church and is now a common theological and technical term used in explaining the real presence in Eucharist.

I am afraid you still are not using it as my Church uses it so I really cannot continue discussing it here.

I can only refer you to the language of the holy fathers that I posted the other day:

9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man's heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], `strengthen thine heart', partaking thereof as spiritual, and `make the face of thy soul to shine'. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:--To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen."

It is still bread , but not common bread.The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.We consume bread and partake of the divine energies.Therefore I think this is what FatherHLL might have ment when he said 'Bread from Heaven' , in an allegorical way, though...

If it's only "allegorically" bread, then it is not bread literally and we believe the same thing.

No.It is poetically bread from heaven.. the origin of the bread is earthly but the bread receives something from above "divine energies"..

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.

Fixed.

Perhaps you would like to fix this also :

From The Orthodox Confession of 1640

"Christ is now in heaven only and not on earth after that manner of the flesh wherein He bore it and lived in it when He was on earth; but after the sacramental manner, whereby He is present in the Holy Eucharist, the same Son of God, God and Man, is also on earth by way of TRANSUBSTANTIATION [kata metousiosis]. For the SUBSTANCE of the bread is changed into the SUBSTANCE of His holy body, and the SUBSTANCE of the wine into the SUBSTANCE of His precious blood.

"The priest must know that at the moment when he consecrates the gifts the SUBSTANCE itself of the bread and the SUBSTANCE of the wine are changed into the SUBSTANCE of the real body and blood of Christ through the operation of the Holy Ghost, whom the priest invokes at that time, consecrating this mystery by praying and saying,

The Confession of 1640, borrowed from Jesuit catechisms, was amended many times before it was received by anyone, including the two local councils most famous for amending it and only thereafter receiving it (the local synods of Iassy 1642 and Jerusalem 1672). Fyi, the Synod of 1672, although somtimes wrongly called "pan-Orthodox," had 8 bishops that were all part of the Holy Synod of Jerusalem, the rest being Archimandrites from Jerusalem with a few from other places).

The council of 1727, on the other hand, was fully Pan-Orthodox, and had this to say on the matter:

"It is right to believe and confess that the most mystic and all-holy rite and Eucharist of the holy Liturgy and bloodless sacrifice, which is for a memorial of Christ our God voluntarily sacrificed on our behalf, is celebrated in the following way. Leavened bread is offered and wine together with warm water is placed in the holy cup, and they are supernaturally changed, the bread into that life-giving body of the Lord and the wine into His precious blood, by the all-holy Spirit by means of the prayer and invocation of the priest which depends on the power of the words of the Lord... As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word metabole, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this Mystery."

In an article concerning the Eucharist in an exposition of faith by a council held at Constantinople in 1727 we find a re-affirmation that the word "TRANSUBSTANTIATION" is "the most fitting statement of this mystery" and the "most accurately significant declaration of this change" in the elements. This Council reads --

"It is right to believe and confess that the most mystic and all-holy rite and Eucharist of the holy Liturgy and BLOODLESS SACRIFICE, which is for a memorial of Christ our God voluntarily sacrificed on our behalf, is celebrated in the following way. Leavened bread is offered and wine together with warm water is placed in the holy cup, and they are supernaturally changed, the bread into that life-giving body of the Lord and the wine into His precious blood, by the all-holy Spirit by means of the prayer and invocation of the priest which depends on the power of the words of the Lord.

"Not that the consecration is effected by the words 'Take, eat,' etc., or by the words 'Drink ye all of it,' etc., as the Latins think; for we have been taught that the consecration takes place at the prayer of the priest and at the words which he utters, namely, 'Make this bread the precious body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this cup the precious blood of Thy Christ, changing them by Thy Holy Ghost,' as the most glorious Apostles and Fathers filled with the Spirit who compiled the holy liturgies explained and handed down, and as this tradition of their divine teaching has come to us and to the Holy Church of Christ, and as also is clearly shown by the example of the Lord Himself, who first prayed and then commanded His Apostles, 'Do this for My memorial.'

"Therefore we acknowledge that at the invocation of the priest that ineffable mystery is consecrated, and the living and with-God-united body itself of our Savior and His blood itself are really and substantially present, and that the whole without being in any way impaired is eaten by those who partake and is BLOODLESSLY SACRIFICED. And we believe without any doubt that in the reception and communion of this, even though it be in ONE KIND ONLY, the WHOLE AND COMPLETE CHRIST is present; nevertheless according to the ancient tradition which has prevailed in the Catholic Church we have received that Communion is made by all the faithful, both clergy and laity, individually in both kinds, and not the laity in one kind and the priests in both, as is done in the innovation which the Latins have wrongly made.

"As an explanatory and MOST ACCURATELY SIGNIFICANT DECLARATION OF THIS CHANGE of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word TRANSUBSTANTIATION, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the MOST FITTING STATEMENT OF THIS MYSTERY. Moreover they ought to reject the use of unleavened bread as an innovation of late date, and to receive the holy rite in leavened bread, as had been the custom from the first in the Catholic Church of Christ." (Stone, page 182-184)

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.

Fixed.

Perhaps you would like to fix this also :

From The Orthodox Confession of 1640

"Christ is now in heaven only and not on earth after that manner of the flesh wherein He bore it and lived in it when He was on earth; but after the sacramental manner, whereby He is present in the Holy Eucharist, the same Son of God, God and Man, is also on earth by way of TRANSUBSTANTIATION [kata metousiosis]. For the SUBSTANCE of the bread is changed into the SUBSTANCE of His holy body, and the SUBSTANCE of the wine into the SUBSTANCE of His precious blood.

"The priest must know that at the moment when he consecrates the gifts the SUBSTANCE itself of the bread and the SUBSTANCE of the wine are changed into the SUBSTANCE of the real body and blood of Christ through the operation of the Holy Ghost, whom the priest invokes at that time, consecrating this mystery by praying and saying,

The Confession of 1640, borrowed from Jesuit catechisms, was amended many times before it was received by anyone, including the two local councils most famous for amending it and only thereafter receiving it (the local synods of Iassy 1642 and Jerusalem 1672). Fyi, the Synod of 1672, although somtimes wrongly called "pan-Orthodox," had 8 bishops that were all part of the Holy Synod of Jerusalem, the rest being Archimandrites from Jerusalem with a few from other places).

The council of 1727, on the other hand, was fully Pan-Orthodox, and had this to say on the matter:

"It is right to believe and confess that the most mystic and all-holy rite and Eucharist of the holy Liturgy and bloodless sacrifice, which is for a memorial of Christ our God voluntarily sacrificed on our behalf, is celebrated in the following way. Leavened bread is offered and wine together with warm water is placed in the holy cup, and they are supernaturally changed, the bread into that life-giving body of the Lord and the wine into His precious blood, by the all-holy Spirit by means of the prayer and invocation of the priest which depends on the power of the words of the Lord... As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word metabole, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this Mystery."

In an article concerning the Eucharist in an exposition of faith by a council held at Constantinople in 1727 we find a re-affirmation that the word "TRANSUBSTANTIATION" is "the most fitting statement of this mystery" and the "most accurately significant declaration of this change" in the elements. This Council reads --

"It is right to believe and confess that the most mystic and all-holy rite and Eucharist of the holy Liturgy and BLOODLESS SACRIFICE, which is for a memorial of Christ our God voluntarily sacrificed on our behalf, is celebrated in the following way. Leavened bread is offered and wine together with warm water is placed in the holy cup, and they are supernaturally changed, the bread into that life-giving body of the Lord and the wine into His precious blood, by the all-holy Spirit by means of the prayer and invocation of the priest which depends on the power of the words of the Lord.

"Not that the consecration is effected by the words 'Take, eat,' etc., or by the words 'Drink ye all of it,' etc., as the Latins think; for we have been taught that the consecration takes place at the prayer of the priest and at the words which he utters, namely, 'Make this bread the precious body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this cup the precious blood of Thy Christ, changing them by Thy Holy Ghost,' as the most glorious Apostles and Fathers filled with the Spirit who compiled the holy liturgies explained and handed down, and as this tradition of their divine teaching has come to us and to the Holy Church of Christ, and as also is clearly shown by the example of the Lord Himself, who first prayed and then commanded His Apostles, 'Do this for My memorial.'

"Therefore we acknowledge that at the invocation of the priest that ineffable mystery is consecrated, and the living and with-God-united body itself of our Savior and His blood itself are really and substantially present, and that the whole without being in any way impaired is eaten by those who partake and is BLOODLESSLY SACRIFICED. And we believe without any doubt that in the reception and communion of this, even though it be in ONE KIND ONLY, the WHOLE AND COMPLETE CHRIST is present; nevertheless according to the ancient tradition which has prevailed in the Catholic Church we have received that Communion is made by all the faithful, both clergy and laity, individually in both kinds, and not the laity in one kind and the priests in both, as is done in the innovation which the Latins have wrongly made.

"As an explanatory and MOST ACCURATELY SIGNIFICANT DECLARATION OF THIS CHANGE of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word TRANSUBSTANTIATION, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the MOST FITTING STATEMENT OF THIS MYSTERY. Moreover they ought to reject the use of unleavened bread as an innovation of late date, and to receive the holy rite in leavened bread, as had been the custom from the first in the Catholic Church of Christ." (Stone, page 182-184)

now that i think more i don`t know why the molecules of the bread and wine need to change as in to stop being what they were rather than divine energies being added to their and in their molecular composition.

« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 12:27:06 PM by Azul »

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

Here is what I can conclude from this discussion. If FrHLL's description is an accurate portrayal of what the EO Church teaches, then we do not share a common faith on this matter after all. For the Catholic, the Eucharist is not bread and it can not be called bread unless we mean that in a metaphorical sense because, for Catholics, the Eucharist is Christ and nothing else. From the Orthodox persepective, it is Christ, but it is also some kind of bread (Heavenly Bread). Thus, we do not agree. My question then is this: Is FrHLL's understanding the generally accepted Eastern Orthodox view? Not that I doubt you FrHLL, but I have seen varying understadnings of Eastern Orthodox theoloogy from different people.

I would not disagree with FrHLL's exposition in any way. But I do think he is giving something of an 'advanced' course here. I don't think your 'average' Orthodox would think to express it in this way. For the most part we stick to 'It is the Body and Blood of Christ', with what FrHLL has been explaining here available to those who wish to delve further.

That said, I'm not sure we are as far apart as you seem to be taking it. We agree that it is not bread (the point of the St. Cyril quote), but it is Bread. Not earthly bread but Heavenly Bread. Look at in this sense--both our Church's agree that when Christ said "This is my body", "This is my blood" He meant it literally. FrHLL (and Orthodoxy) is just applying the same logic to John 6: 48-56. "My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink".

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.

Fixed.

What do you think substance is?

molecular structure..

So when we say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, we mean that they both possess the same molecular structure?

homousiosis can also be translate as of the same essence or of the same being... i think the terms consubstantial is improper as it implies from my p.o.v molecular structure... every substance(in chemistry) has a molecular structure.. essence is much proper because it means the core of being and does not imply a certain structure of any kind.

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.

Fixed.

What do you think substance is?

molecular structure..

So when we say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, we mean that they both possess the same molecular structure?

homousiosis can also be translate as of the same essence or of the same being... i think the terms consubstantial is improper as it implies from my p.o.v molecular structure... every substance(in chemistry) has a molecular structure.. essence is much proper because it means the core of being and does not imply a certain structure of any kind.

For the sake of this argument, and considering your attempts to correct others, does anyone really care how you personally define substance? Why must substance be defined as it would be in a chemistry class? Is this how the early Latin Fathers used the word?

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.

Fixed.

What do you think substance is?

molecular structure..

Careful...the most pure Body and most precious Blood has come down from heaven...in an ineffable way.

We are back to what is meant by "substance" and then the question of what Eucharist is...substantially.

PS: Didn't catch PtA's note till after this posted but it is similar line of inquiry...You don't want to elide it if possible but go at it directly. Science will NOT detect a corporeal body in Eucharist!!

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.

Fixed.

What do you think substance is?

molecular structure..

So when we say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, we mean that they both possess the same molecular structure?

homousiosis can also be translate as of the same essence or of the same being... i think the terms consubstantial is improper as it implies from my p.o.v molecular structure... every substance(in chemistry) has a molecular structure.. essence is much proper because it means the core of being and does not imply a certain structure of any kind.

For the sake of this argument, and considering your attempts to correct others, does anyone really care how you personally define substance? Why must substance be defined as it would be in a chemistry class? Is this how the early Latin Fathers used the word?

Which word are we talking about?

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.

Fixed.

What do you think substance is?

molecular structure..

Careful...the most pure Body and most precious Blood has come down from heaven...in an ineffable way.

We are back to what is meant by "substance" and then the question of what Eucharist is...substantially.

PS: Didn't catch PtA's note till after this posted but it is similar line of inquiry...You don't want to elide it if possible but go at it directly. Science will NOT detect a corporeal body in Eucharist!!

Why would they detect a corporeal body in the Eucharist?I don`t think we are cannibals and we are not really eating the flesh-flesh of Jesus Christ.

On another hand they say that they found human heart tissue and blood tissue in the "Bleeding Host Miracle in Betania,Venezuela in 1998".

« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 03:42:11 PM by Azul »

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.

Fixed.

Perhaps you would like to fix this also :

From The Orthodox Confession of 1640

"Christ is now in heaven only and not on earth after that manner of the flesh wherein He bore it and lived in it when He was on earth; but after the sacramental manner, whereby He is present in the Holy Eucharist, the same Son of God, God and Man, is also on earth by way of TRANSUBSTANTIATION [kata metousiosis]. For the SUBSTANCE of the bread is changed into the SUBSTANCE of His holy body, and the SUBSTANCE of the wine into the SUBSTANCE of His precious blood.

"The priest must know that at the moment when he consecrates the gifts the SUBSTANCE itself of the bread and the SUBSTANCE of the wine are changed into the SUBSTANCE of the real body and blood of Christ through the operation of the Holy Ghost, whom the priest invokes at that time, consecrating this mystery by praying and saying,

The Confession of 1640, borrowed from Jesuit catechisms, was amended many times before it was received by anyone, including the two local councils most famous for amending it and only thereafter receiving it (the local synods of Iassy 1642 and Jerusalem 1672). Fyi, the Synod of 1672, although somtimes wrongly called "pan-Orthodox," had 8 bishops that were all part of the Holy Synod of Jerusalem, the rest being Archimandrites from Jerusalem with a few from other places).

The council of 1727, on the other hand, was fully Pan-Orthodox, and had this to say on the matter:

"It is right to believe and confess that the most mystic and all-holy rite and Eucharist of the holy Liturgy and bloodless sacrifice, which is for a memorial of Christ our God voluntarily sacrificed on our behalf, is celebrated in the following way. Leavened bread is offered and wine together with warm water is placed in the holy cup, and they are supernaturally changed, the bread into that life-giving body of the Lord and the wine into His precious blood, by the all-holy Spirit by means of the prayer and invocation of the priest which depends on the power of the words of the Lord... As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word metabole, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this Mystery."

In an article concerning the Eucharist in an exposition of faith by a council held at Constantinople in 1727 we find a re-affirmation that the word "TRANSUBSTANTIATION" is "the most fitting statement of this mystery" and the "most accurately significant declaration of this change" in the elements. This Council reads --

"It is right to believe and confess that the most mystic and all-holy rite and Eucharist of the holy Liturgy and BLOODLESS SACRIFICE, which is for a memorial of Christ our God voluntarily sacrificed on our behalf, is celebrated in the following way. Leavened bread is offered and wine together with warm water is placed in the holy cup, and they are supernaturally changed, the bread into that life-giving body of the Lord and the wine into His precious blood, by the all-holy Spirit by means of the prayer and invocation of the priest which depends on the power of the words of the Lord.

"Not that the consecration is effected by the words 'Take, eat,' etc., or by the words 'Drink ye all of it,' etc., as the Latins think; for we have been taught that the consecration takes place at the prayer of the priest and at the words which he utters, namely, 'Make this bread the precious body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this cup the precious blood of Thy Christ, changing them by Thy Holy Ghost,' as the most glorious Apostles and Fathers filled with the Spirit who compiled the holy liturgies explained and handed down, and as this tradition of their divine teaching has come to us and to the Holy Church of Christ, and as also is clearly shown by the example of the Lord Himself, who first prayed and then commanded His Apostles, 'Do this for My memorial.'

"Therefore we acknowledge that at the invocation of the priest that ineffable mystery is consecrated, and the living and with-God-united body itself of our Savior and His blood itself are really and substantially present, and that the whole without being in any way impaired is eaten by those who partake and is BLOODLESSLY SACRIFICED. And we believe without any doubt that in the reception and communion of this, even though it be in ONE KIND ONLY, the WHOLE AND COMPLETE CHRIST is present; nevertheless according to the ancient tradition which has prevailed in the Catholic Church we have received that Communion is made by all the faithful, both clergy and laity, individually in both kinds, and not the laity in one kind and the priests in both, as is done in the innovation which the Latins have wrongly made.

"As an explanatory and MOST ACCURATELY SIGNIFICANT DECLARATION OF THIS CHANGE of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word TRANSUBSTANTIATION, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the MOST FITTING STATEMENT OF THIS MYSTERY. Moreover they ought to reject the use of unleavened bread as an innovation of late date, and to receive the holy rite in leavened bread, as had been the custom from the first in the Catholic Church of Christ." (Stone, page 182-184)

You do realize that you're just giving us a different translation of the same statement you quoted from FatherHLL? So, what's the difference between transubstantiation and metabole?

Thanks Peter. And that is the point. The bringyou article has been around for a while and is purposely misleading, as the word there is metabole (change) and not metousiosis (transubstantiation). The whole purpose was that the Synod of 1727 was defining that, although both terms were in use among theologians, metabole is the most accurate. Yet the bringyou article tries to make it look like the exact opposite as if it was supporting metousiosis/transubstantiation.

I worry when I read posters referring to 'molecular' nature etc... It is a slippery slope from there to strict empiricism and Orthodoxy has never applied such tests to anything - unlike the Roman Church. ('proving' miracles, etc....) I think we need to remember, to paraphrase St. Paul, that we see things now as through a mirror or in a dim light. Some things are mysteries to us in our human condition and try as we might to fully explain them or define them, we are unable to either find words to totally express these mysteries or else we lose our faith in trying to prove them by means of logic and reason.

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.

Fixed.

Perhaps you would like to fix this also :

From The Orthodox Confession of 1640

"Christ is now in heaven only and not on earth after that manner of the flesh wherein He bore it and lived in it when He was on earth; but after the sacramental manner, whereby He is present in the Holy Eucharist, the same Son of God, God and Man, is also on earth by way of TRANSUBSTANTIATION [kata metousiosis]. For the SUBSTANCE of the bread is changed into the SUBSTANCE of His holy body, and the SUBSTANCE of the wine into the SUBSTANCE of His precious blood.

"The priest must know that at the moment when he consecrates the gifts the SUBSTANCE itself of the bread and the SUBSTANCE of the wine are changed into the SUBSTANCE of the real body and blood of Christ through the operation of the Holy Ghost, whom the priest invokes at that time, consecrating this mystery by praying and saying,

The Confession of 1640, borrowed from Jesuit catechisms, was amended many times before it was received by anyone, including the two local councils most famous for amending it and only thereafter receiving it (the local synods of Iassy 1642 and Jerusalem 1672). Fyi, the Synod of 1672, although somtimes wrongly called "pan-Orthodox," had 8 bishops that were all part of the Holy Synod of Jerusalem, the rest being Archimandrites from Jerusalem with a few from other places).

The council of 1727, on the other hand, was fully Pan-Orthodox, and had this to say on the matter:

"It is right to believe and confess that the most mystic and all-holy rite and Eucharist of the holy Liturgy and bloodless sacrifice, which is for a memorial of Christ our God voluntarily sacrificed on our behalf, is celebrated in the following way. Leavened bread is offered and wine together with warm water is placed in the holy cup, and they are supernaturally changed, the bread into that life-giving body of the Lord and the wine into His precious blood, by the all-holy Spirit by means of the prayer and invocation of the priest which depends on the power of the words of the Lord... As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word metabole, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this Mystery."

In an article concerning the Eucharist in an exposition of faith by a council held at Constantinople in 1727 we find a re-affirmation that the word "TRANSUBSTANTIATION" is "the most fitting statement of this mystery" and the "most accurately significant declaration of this change" in the elements. This Council reads --

"It is right to believe and confess that the most mystic and all-holy rite and Eucharist of the holy Liturgy and BLOODLESS SACRIFICE, which is for a memorial of Christ our God voluntarily sacrificed on our behalf, is celebrated in the following way. Leavened bread is offered and wine together with warm water is placed in the holy cup, and they are supernaturally changed, the bread into that life-giving body of the Lord and the wine into His precious blood, by the all-holy Spirit by means of the prayer and invocation of the priest which depends on the power of the words of the Lord.

"Not that the consecration is effected by the words 'Take, eat,' etc., or by the words 'Drink ye all of it,' etc., as the Latins think; for we have been taught that the consecration takes place at the prayer of the priest and at the words which he utters, namely, 'Make this bread the precious body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this cup the precious blood of Thy Christ, changing them by Thy Holy Ghost,' as the most glorious Apostles and Fathers filled with the Spirit who compiled the holy liturgies explained and handed down, and as this tradition of their divine teaching has come to us and to the Holy Church of Christ, and as also is clearly shown by the example of the Lord Himself, who first prayed and then commanded His Apostles, 'Do this for My memorial.'

"Therefore we acknowledge that at the invocation of the priest that ineffable mystery is consecrated, and the living and with-God-united body itself of our Savior and His blood itself are really and substantially present, and that the whole without being in any way impaired is eaten by those who partake and is BLOODLESSLY SACRIFICED. And we believe without any doubt that in the reception and communion of this, even though it be in ONE KIND ONLY, the WHOLE AND COMPLETE CHRIST is present; nevertheless according to the ancient tradition which has prevailed in the Catholic Church we have received that Communion is made by all the faithful, both clergy and laity, individually in both kinds, and not the laity in one kind and the priests in both, as is done in the innovation which the Latins have wrongly made.

"As an explanatory and MOST ACCURATELY SIGNIFICANT DECLARATION OF THIS CHANGE of the bread and the wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word TRANSUBSTANTIATION, which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the MOST FITTING STATEMENT OF THIS MYSTERY. Moreover they ought to reject the use of unleavened bread as an innovation of late date, and to receive the holy rite in leavened bread, as had been the custom from the first in the Catholic Church of Christ." (Stone, page 182-184)

You do realize that you're just giving us a different translation of the same statement you quoted from FatherHLL? So, what's the difference between transubstantiation and metabole?

Thanks Peter. And that is the point. The bringyou article has been around for a while and is purposely misleading, as the word there is metabole (change) and not metousiosis (transubstantiation). The whole purpose was that the Synod of 1727 was defining that, although both terms were in use among theologians, metabole is the most accurate. Yet the bringyou article tries to make it look like the exact opposite as if it was supporting metousiosis/transubstantiation.

My bad than.

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

Thanks Peter. And that is the point. The bringyou article has been around for a while and is purposely misleading, as the word there is metabole (change) and not metousiosis (transubstantiation). The whole purpose was that the Synod of 1727 was defining that, although both terms were in use among theologians, metabole is the most accurate. Yet the bringyou article tries to make it look like the exact opposite as if it was supporting metousiosis/transubstantiation.

Darwell Stone cites the decree of the 1727 Synod in his book A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. He offers this translation of the sentence in question: "As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change (metaboles) of the bread and wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word Transubstantiation (metousioseos), which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this mystery" (I:185). (I'm not good at transliterating Greek words, so if I've botched up a letter or two, please excuse.)

Does anyone have access to the Greek text to confirm or disconfirm this translation? Stone was a careful scholar. I would be surprised if he mistranslated the text, but I've been surprised before in my life. It's also possible that he translated a corrupt text. Stone cites the Collectio conciliorum recentiorum Ecclesiae universae, ed. by Martin and Petit, as the source of the text. Stone was an Anglican. I don't think he had a Latin axe to grind.

I don't think we need to get very technical about the meaning of "substance" when discussing the eucharistic change. No doubt it had a technical meaning for Thomas Aquinas and other scholastics; but as Fr HLL notes, the Council of Trent avoided the use of the word "accident" and instead chose the word "appearance." This suggests that we are to interpret the Tridentine terminology in commonsense, non-technical fashion. Just as "appearance" designates the qualities of an object that we perceive, so "substance" designates the reality of an object. Substance answers the question "What is that object?" To say that the substance of the bread has been changed into the substance of the Body of Christ is simply to say that the bread has become and now is the Body of Christ. We are not talking about the molecular structure of the bread nor are we talking about some inner essence that lies underneath the physical qualities. As Catholic theologian Colman O'Neill states:

Quote

What the dogma states is no more than what is required if Christ's words, as spoken at the Last Supper and at Mass, are to be understood as referring to the thing placed on the table or contained in the cup. For, at the pre-philosophical level of common sense, "substance" is that which permits us to state that a thing existing independently of ourselves, our knowledge or our attitudes, is either bread or the body of Christ. And it is apparent to common sense that a thing understood this way may not be simultaneously bread and the body of Christ. By her dogmatic statement the Church makes clear the sense in which she reads the scriptural report of Christ's words at the Last Supper: the word "is" indicates, as a result of Christ's power, real identity between what lay on the table and his body. (New Approaches to the Eucharist, p. 98)

We are simply engaged in pre-philosophical identification of things. If this is true about Trent, then it is most certainly true for the Orthodox bishops and theologians who appropriated this way of speaking. We don't need to get too technical.

Please understand: I am not arguing that substance language is the best way to speak of the eucharistic presence. I am just trying to help the brethren to understand what Latin Catholics mean when they employ this language.

Thanks Peter. And that is the point. The bringyou article has been around for a while and is purposely misleading, as the word there is metabole (change) and not metousiosis (transubstantiation). The whole purpose was that the Synod of 1727 was defining that, although both terms were in use among theologians, metabole is the most accurate. Yet the bringyou article tries to make it look like the exact opposite as if it was supporting metousiosis/transubstantiation.

Darwell Stone cites the decree of the 1727 Synod in his book A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. He offers this translation of the sentence in question: "As an explanatory and most accurately significant declaration of this change (metaboles) of the bread and wine into the body of the Lord itself and His blood the faithful ought to acknowledge and receive the word Transubstantiation (metousioseos), which the Catholic Church as a whole has used and receives as the most fitting statement of this mystery" (I:185). (I'm not good at transliterating Greek words, so if I've botched up a letter or two, please excuse.)

Does anyone have access to the Greek text to confirm or disconfirm this translation? Stone was a careful scholar. I would be surprised if he mistranslated the text, but I've been surprised before in my life. It's also possible that he translated a corrupt text. Stone cites the Collectio conciliorum recentiorum Ecclesiae universae, ed. by Martin and Petit, as the source of the text. Stone was an Anglican. I don't think he had a Latin axe to grind.

Interesting. The translation I used is from the oodegr. We would have to confirm whether it was a corrupt text.

The essence of the bread and wine is transliterated with the essence of the Body and Blood of Christ... it is still bread and wine but now what contains the essentials for our body , 'bread and wine' , contains also the essentials for our soul.

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.

Fixed.

What do you think substance is?

molecular structure..

So when we say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, we mean that they both possess the same molecular structure?

homousiosis can also be translate as of the same essence or of the same being... i think the terms consubstantial is improper as it implies from my p.o.v molecular structure... every substance(in chemistry) has a molecular structure.. essence is much proper because it means the core of being and does not imply a certain structure of any kind.

For the sake of this argument, and considering your attempts to correct others, does anyone really care how you personally define substance? Why must substance be defined as it would be in a chemistry class? Is this how the early Latin Fathers used the word?

Please understand: I am not arguing that substance language is the best way to speak of the eucharistic presence. I am just trying to help the brethren to understand what Latin Catholics mean when they employ this language.

One thing that can be counted on is that the is-ness of the Body and Blood of Christ as Eucharist is not corporeal. It is the incarnate and glorified body of the Risen Christ.

We never could think of Jesus as simply a human corpus. Not even this particular body.

He always was God and man, Incarnate. So even in this life he was something other.

The the idea of real presence takes both realities into account. The Absolute Uniqueness of Jesus in this life and the great mystery of his Death, Resurrection and Ascension, and the continuing re-presentation of his life, death and resurrection on the holy altar at every liturgy, both inside and out of time.

Much of what is held in the Fathers as the reality of Eucharist comes from their understanding of the Gospel of John, as the Blessed Apostle presents the Word to us.

I will say this much: if anyone seeks to really comprehend the meanings given to real presence by St. Thomas Aquinas then they must first read his commentary on the Gospel of John where he uses Origen and St. John Chrysostom very heavily in his teaching on those sacred pages. It is from this mystical understanding of the Word that he works to find language that best represents the mysteries that are substantially inherent as Eucharist. There is not the disconnect, east to west, that these kinds of discussions sometimes express.

You wrote that Thomas Aquinas found language that best represents the mysteries that are substantially inherent as Eucharist. Thas is too much in the Faith Issues forum from the non-Orthodox poster.

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.

Fixed.

What do you think substance is?

molecular structure..

So when we say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, we mean that they both possess the same molecular structure?

homousiosis can also be translate as of the same essence or of the same being... i think the terms consubstantial is improper as it implies from my p.o.v molecular structure... every substance(in chemistry) has a molecular structure.. essence is much proper because it means the core of being and does not imply a certain structure of any kind.

For the sake of this argument, and considering your attempts to correct others, does anyone really care how you personally define substance? Why must substance be defined as it would be in a chemistry class? Is this how the early Latin Fathers used the word?

Which word are we talking about?

substance

I don`t know how the "Latin Fathers" used that word and it is not my problem.We are discussing the Eucharist from the Orthodox point of view.

It is bread and wine with divine ingredients.To the ingredients of the bread and wine it is added divine energies.

Correct me if I am wrong but we are better than this Latins, we are not cannibals.

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

I don`t know how the "Latin Fathers" used that word and it is not my problem.We are discussing the Eucharist from the Orthodox point of view.

It is bread and wine with divine ingredients.To the ingredients of the bread and wine it is added divine energies.

Correct me if I am wrong but we are better than this Latins, we are not cannibals.

Knowing what "substance" means, at least when employed to speak of the eucharistic change is not irrelevant, as the Orthodox Church used this language for 500 years. Hence I think it is important to figure out what she meant when she used it, not just for historical reasons but to ensure that we maintain a continuity of meaning in our present eucharistic reflection and discourse. We don't want to say less than she did during those 500 years.

I am curious. When you state that the divine energies are added to the bread and wine, which of our Fathers explicitly say this?

The charge of cannibalism is interesting and very much to the point. Some of the most realistic language about the eucharistic presence is found in the Eastern tradition. Consider, for example, this passage from St John Chrysostom:

"Wherefore this also Christ hath done, to lead us to a closer friendship, and to show his love for us; he hath given to those who desire him not only to see him, but even to touch, and eat him, and fix their teeth in his flesh, and to embrace him, and satisfy all their love."

One disadvantage of transubstantiation is that it seems to exclude precisely this way of talking. Transubstantiation seemingly makes a clear distinction between the sensible qualities of the bread and wine (the appearances) and the nontangible, imperceptible substance of the bread and wine, which has been changed into the substance of the Body and Blood. Thus when we eat and drink the elements, we do not physically touch, eat, and drink the Body and Blood. The mysteriological model, as described by Fr HLL, actually allows us to talk just like St John did. If we are never accused of cannibalism, then we are probably not being faithful to the Tradition.

I don`t know how the "Latin Fathers" used that word and it is not my problem.We are discussing the Eucharist from the Orthodox point of view.

It is bread and wine with divine ingredients.To the ingredients of the bread and wine it is added divine energies.

Correct me if I am wrong but we are better than this Latins, we are not cannibals.

Knowing what "substance" means, at least when employed to speak of the eucharistic change is not irrelevant, as the Orthodox Church used this language for 500 years. Hence I think it is important to figure out what she meant when she used it, not just for historical reasons but to ensure that we maintain a continuity of meaning in our present eucharistic reflection and discourse. We don't want to say less than she did during those 500 years.

I am curious. When you state that the divine energies are added to the bread and wine, which of our Fathers explicitly say this?

The charge of cannibalism is interesting and very much to the point. Some of the most realistic language about the eucharistic presence is found in the Eastern tradition. Consider, for example, this passage from St John Chrysostom:

"Wherefore this also Christ hath done, to lead us to a closer friendship, and to show his love for us; he hath given to those who desire him not only to see him, but even to touch, and eat him, and fix their teeth in his flesh, and to embrace him, and satisfy all their love."

One disadvantage of transubstantiation is that it seems to exclude precisely this way of talking. Transubstantiation seemingly makes a clear distinction between the sensible qualities of the bread and wine (the appearances) and the nontangible, imperceptible substance of the bread and wine, which has been changed into the substance of the Body and Blood. Thus when we eat and drink the elements, we do not physically touch, eat, and drink the Body and Blood. The mysteriological model, as described by Fr HLL, actually allows us to talk just like St John did. If we are never accused of cannibalism, then we are probably not being faithful to the Tradition.

I have been told that we don`t use the word 'transubtsantiation' .

I don`t think that we are cannibals.I don`t think that we eat the body-body of Christ or drink the blood-blood of Christ.. I think my G-d will never make anything immoral and I think that He is better than that.

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

Cannibals eat dead flesh. We eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the living and glorified Christ. Do you find this offensive? Read John 6. Some of Jesus' followers also were offended by the carnal realism of Jesus' words and abandoned him.

"By saying, 'This is My Body,' He shows that the bread which is sanctified on the altar is the Lords Body Itself, and not a symbolic type. For He did not say, 'This is a type,' but 'This is My Body.' By an ineffable action it is changed, although it may appear to us as bread. Since we are weak and could not endure raw meat, much less human flesh, it appears as bread to us although it is indeed flesh."

The Orthodox Church does not teach a mere spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist, such as one might find in various Protestant denominations. That is precisely why the Orthodox Church appropriated the term "transubstantiation" after the Reformation, to distinguish Orthodox teaching from the spiritual presence of the Reformed or the consubstantiation of Lutheranism. Jesus did not say, "This bread is filled with the divine energies." He said, "This is my body."

It's not often that I find myself nearing agreement with Vladimir Moss, but he advances an Orthodox interpretation of the eucharistic presence that cannot be simply dismissed: Dialogue Between an Orthodox and an Ecumenist on the Body and Blood of Christ." The Orthodox position is far stronger than the assertion that the bread and wine are filled with the divine energies or penetrated by the Holy Spirit. What Protestant would object to that? The Orthodox position is not less realistic than the Catholic position; indeed, I would suggest that it is even more realistic ... and more mystical.

It is still bread , but not common bread. The substance of the bread becomes the substance of the Body of Christ.

Fixed.

What do you think substance is?

molecular structure..

So when we say that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, we mean that they both possess the same molecular structure?

homousiosis can also be translate as of the same essence or of the same being... i think the terms consubstantial is improper as it implies from my p.o.v molecular structure... every substance(in chemistry) has a molecular structure.. essence is much proper because it means the core of being and does not imply a certain structure of any kind.

For the sake of this argument, and considering your attempts to correct others, does anyone really care how you personally define substance? Why must substance be defined as it would be in a chemistry class? Is this how the early Latin Fathers used the word?

Which word are we talking about?

substance

I don`t know how the "Latin Fathers" used that word and it is not my problem.

Actually, it is your problem when you substitute your own idiosyncratic definition of substance for the definition given us by the Fathers and the Church and build your arguments according to your definition.

For all of the words passing back and forth, this issue is not one upon which a schism inducing difference exists or is justified between the Roman Church and Orthodoxy. Someone mentioned that in the 17th and 18th century the Orthodox position was more clearly explained so as not to be confused with that of the Protestants. As to the difference between the Roman and our position, leave it to the academicians and the theologians to split hairs. Translations and nuance, nuance and translations. Around and around we go.....

Cannibals eat dead flesh. We eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the living and glorified Christ. Do you find this offensive? Read John 6. Some of Jesus' followers also were offended by the carnal realism of Jesus' words and abandoned him.

"By saying, 'This is My Body,' He shows that the bread which is sanctified on the altar is the Lords Body Itself, and not a symbolic type. For He did not say, 'This is a type,' but 'This is My Body.' By an ineffable action it is changed, although it may appear to us as bread. Since we are weak and could not endure raw meat, much less human flesh, it appears as bread to us although it is indeed flesh."

The Orthodox Church does not teach a mere spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist, such as one might find in various Protestant denominations. That is precisely why the Orthodox Church appropriated the term "transubstantiation" after the Reformation, to distinguish Orthodox teaching from the spiritual presence of the Reformed or the consubstantiation of Lutheranism. Jesus did not say, "This bread is filled with the divine energies." He said, "This is my body."

It's not often that I find myself nearing agreement with Vladimir Moss, but he advances an Orthodox interpretation of the eucharistic presence that cannot be simply dismissed: Dialogue Between an Orthodox and an Ecumenist on the Body and Blood of Christ." The Orthodox position is far stronger than the assertion that the bread and wine are filled with the divine energies or penetrated by the Holy Spirit. What Protestant would object to that? The Orthodox position is not less realistic than the Catholic position; indeed, I would suggest that it is even more realistic ... and more mystical.

No cannibals eat dead or alive human flesh.It does not make any difference.Those who eat human flesh are cannibals.

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

Cannibals eat dead flesh. We eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the living and glorified Christ. Do you find this offensive? Read John 6. Some of Jesus' followers also were offended by the carnal realism of Jesus' words and abandoned him.

"By saying, 'This is My Body,' He shows that the bread which is sanctified on the altar is the Lords Body Itself, and not a symbolic type. For He did not say, 'This is a type,' but 'This is My Body.' By an ineffable action it is changed, although it may appear to us as bread. Since we are weak and could not endure raw meat, much less human flesh, it appears as bread to us although it is indeed flesh."

The Orthodox Church does not teach a mere spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist, such as one might find in various Protestant denominations. That is precisely why the Orthodox Church appropriated the term "transubstantiation" after the Reformation, to distinguish Orthodox teaching from the spiritual presence of the Reformed or the consubstantiation of Lutheranism. Jesus did not say, "This bread is filled with the divine energies." He said, "This is my body."

It's not often that I find myself nearing agreement with Vladimir Moss, but he advances an Orthodox interpretation of the eucharistic presence that cannot be simply dismissed: Dialogue Between an Orthodox and an Ecumenist on the Body and Blood of Christ." The Orthodox position is far stronger than the assertion that the bread and wine are filled with the divine energies or penetrated by the Holy Spirit. What Protestant would object to that? The Orthodox position is not less realistic than the Catholic position; indeed, I would suggest that it is even more realistic ... and more mystical.

No cannibals eat dead or alive human flesh.It does not make any difference.Those who eat human flesh are cannibals.

Cannibals eat dead flesh. We eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the living and glorified Christ. Do you find this offensive? Read John 6. Some of Jesus' followers also were offended by the carnal realism of Jesus' words and abandoned him.

"By saying, 'This is My Body,' He shows that the bread which is sanctified on the altar is the Lords Body Itself, and not a symbolic type. For He did not say, 'This is a type,' but 'This is My Body.' By an ineffable action it is changed, although it may appear to us as bread. Since we are weak and could not endure raw meat, much less human flesh, it appears as bread to us although it is indeed flesh."

The Orthodox Church does not teach a mere spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist, such as one might find in various Protestant denominations. That is precisely why the Orthodox Church appropriated the term "transubstantiation" after the Reformation, to distinguish Orthodox teaching from the spiritual presence of the Reformed or the consubstantiation of Lutheranism. Jesus did not say, "This bread is filled with the divine energies." He said, "This is my body."

It's not often that I find myself nearing agreement with Vladimir Moss, but he advances an Orthodox interpretation of the eucharistic presence that cannot be simply dismissed: Dialogue Between an Orthodox and an Ecumenist on the Body and Blood of Christ." The Orthodox position is far stronger than the assertion that the bread and wine are filled with the divine energies or penetrated by the Holy Spirit. What Protestant would object to that? The Orthodox position is not less realistic than the Catholic position; indeed, I would suggest that it is even more realistic ... and more mystical.

No cannibals eat dead or alive human flesh.It does not make any difference.Those who eat human flesh are cannibals.

Well, then, I guess that makes me a cannibal.

...and a vampire.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

No cannibals eat dead or alive human flesh.It does not make any difference.Those who eat human flesh are cannibals.

Azul, you claim to be Orthodox, please let us know if you have every had Holy Communion and if you have, tell me what it is that you ingested?Did you just get in line because everyone else was, or did you go up with fear and awe of God?

What about you, Jetavan? Are you agreeing that this is cannibalism and taking it a step higher to being a vampire.

Very sad commentary by Orthodox individuals. Really.

Once again, you've all managed to take the most Holy Gifts, something that our Creator has given us for our own salvation, and dissected it to the smallest molecule and argued over what it is composed of, and what it is or isn't.

You are missing the point....Christ said "'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me'" (1 Cor. 11:23-25).

Christ, Himself, instructed us to do this. He didn't stop and explain the details, or how the Holy Spirit works precisely. He told us what we needed to know for our own salvation, and apparently the "how" isn't necessary for us to know.

Christ also said He is the Door....yet, He's certainly not a plank of wood. He is the Light, and yet, He looks different from a lantern.

You either believe, or you don't.

....and if you don't....it would best for you that you NOT take Holy Communion.

For it is said: "For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep" 1 Cor. 11:30

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

No cannibals eat dead or alive human flesh.It does not make any difference.Those who eat human flesh are cannibals.

Azul, you claim to be Orthodox, please let us know if you have every had Holy Communion and if you have, tell me what it is that you ingested?Did you just get in line because everyone else was, or did you go up with fear and awe of God?

What about you, Jetavan? Are you agreeing that this is cannibalism and taking it a step higher to being a vampire.

No, I disagree, which is what the was all about. I've heard Pentecostals claim that Catholics were cannibals and vampires.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

No cannibals eat dead or alive human flesh.It does not make any difference.Those who eat human flesh are cannibals.

Azul, you claim to be Orthodox, please let us know if you have every had Holy Communion and if you have, tell me what it is that you ingested?Did you just get in line because everyone else was, or did you go up with fear and awe of God?

What about you, Jetavan? Are you agreeing that this is cannibalism and taking it a step higher to being a vampire.

Very sad commentary by Orthodox individuals. Really.

Once again, you've all managed to take the most Holy Gifts, something that our Creator has given us for our own salvation, and dissected it to the smallest molecule and argued over what it is composed of, and what it is or isn't.

You are missing the point....Christ said "'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.' In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me'" (1 Cor. 11:23-25).

Christ, Himself, instructed us to do this. He didn't stop and explain the details, or how the Holy Spirit works precisely. He told us what we needed to know for our own salvation, and apparently the "how" isn't necessary for us to know.

Christ also said He is the Door....yet, He's certainly not a plank of wood. He is the Light, and yet, He looks different from a lantern.

You either believe, or you don't.

....and if you don't....it would best for you that you NOT take Holy Communion.

For it is said: "For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep" 1 Cor. 11:30

I had Holy Communion multiple times, since childhood.When I was a child i didn`t knew the theological implications all I knew is that it was something holy.Lately I have been having a lot of struggles with the Eucharist, because of cannibalism.. It is one of the various reasons that made me intrerupt Confession/Communion... I just can`t take the idea of cannibalism... It is completely and ABSOLUTELY inapropriate... I'd better not commune again than commit cannibalism... The idea is extremely sick... I personally deep down believe that this is not the case.Well I want to believe that..

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

No cannibals eat dead or alive human flesh.It does not make any difference.Those who eat human flesh are cannibals.

Azul, you claim to be Orthodox, please let us know if you have every had Holy Communion and if you have, tell me what it is that you ingested?Did you just get in line because everyone else was, or did you go up with fear and awe of God?

I had Holy Communion multiple times, since childhood.When I was a child i didn`t knew the theological implications all I knew is that it was something holy.Lately I have been having a lot of struggles with the Eucharist, because of cannibalism.. It is one of the various reasons that made me intrerupt Confession/Communion... I just can`t take the idea of cannibalism... It is completely and ABSOLUTELY inapropriate... I'd better not commune again than commit cannibalism... The idea is extremely sick... I personally deep down believe that this is not the case.Well I want to believe that..

So, is it simply Holy Communion that you can't comprehend and seems barbaric to you?

What about Holy Baptism - where you "die" and are reborn. Let's dissect that notion. Explain how you "die"....is there a tunnel of light....

I'm truly not poking fun at you Azul, however, there are MANY things in Orthodoxy that are beyond our human comprehension.

Sometimes you simply have to go on faith. Christ said to do it. There's NO doubt He said it. That's good enough for me.

In class today, my group of 9 and 10 year olds began asking about creation...and if God was not made....where did He come from and what was before Him. Nothing comes from nothing....In their minds there had to be a time "before" God....and He came in from somewhere.

Try explaining that one. We are used to "scientific" explanations. We live with logic. We crave to know the how and why. That's why mysteries and detective novels are such a hit.

However, when it comes to the Holy, we need to realize our own limitations - given to us by God.

We use approximately 10% of our brain. What's the other 90% for? Perhaps God has left that portion of our minds sleeping, because we wouldn't be able to process and understand it all in our current human state.

I'll pray that you get over this self-imposed hurdle. You are keeping yourself away from Christ Himself, because you need "proof".

Blessed are they who have not seen, yet, believe.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” - St Clement of Alexandria

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…” - St Clement of Alexandria

“’I,’ says the Lord, ‘have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.’ You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk.” (ibid) - St Clement of Alexandria

“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.” - St Clement of Alexandria

“If, then, “the milk” is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “meat” to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction — the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence. “Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,” it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner.” (Stramata 5:10) - St Clement of Alexandria

“‘For if any one should turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away, and the Lord is the Spirit.’ Now some one when dealing with the passage might say, that just as ‘not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man,’ of even though it may be thought by the Jews to be defiled, so not that which entereth into the mouth sanctifieth the man, even though what is called the bread of the Lord may be thought by the simpler disciples to sanctify. And the saying is I think, not to be despised, and on this account, demands clear exposition, which seems to me to be thus; as it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt which defiles him that eateth, for ‘he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith,’ and as nothing is pure to him who is defiled and unbelieving, not in itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not, in its own nature, sanctify him who uses it, for, if this were so, it would sanctify even him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord, and no one on account of this food would become weak or sickly or asleep for something of this kind Paul represented in saying, ‘For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few sleep.’ And in the case of the bread of the Lord, accordingly, there is advantage to him who uses it, when with undefiled mind and pure conscience he partakes of the bread. And so neither by not eating, I mean by the very fact that we do not eat of the bread which has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, are we deprived of any good thing, nor by eating are we the better by any good thing; for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions; so that such is the meaning of what is said by Paul, ‘For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.’” - Origen

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

I had Holy Communion multiple times, since childhood.When I was a child i didn`t knew the theological implications all I knew is that it was something holy.Lately I have been having a lot of struggles with the Eucharist, because of cannibalism.. It is one of the various reasons that made me intrerupt Confession/Communion... I just can`t take the idea of cannibalism... It is completely and ABSOLUTELY inapropriate... I'd better not commune again than commit cannibalism... The idea is extremely sick... I personally deep down believe that this is not the case.Well I want to believe that..

So, is it simply Holy Communion that you can't comprehend and seems barbaric to you?

What about Holy Baptism - where you "die" and are reborn. Let's dissect that notion. Explain how you "die"....is there a tunnel of light....

I'm truly not poking fun at you Azul, however, there are MANY things in Orthodoxy that are beyond our human comprehension.

Sometimes you simply have to go on faith. Christ said to do it. There's NO doubt He said it. That's good enough for me.

In class today, my group of 9 and 10 year olds began asking about creation...and if God was not made....where did He come from and what was before Him. Nothing comes from nothing....In their minds there had to be a time "before" God....and He came in from somewhere.

Try explaining that one. We are used to "scientific" explanations. We live with logic. We crave to know the how and why. That's why mysteries and detective novels are such a hit.

However, when it comes to the Holy, we need to realize our own limitations - given to us by God.

We use approximately 10% of our brain. What's the other 90% for? Perhaps God has left that portion of our minds sleeping, because we wouldn't be able to process and understand it all in our current human state.

I'll pray that you get over this self-imposed hurdle. You are keeping yourself away from Christ Himself, because you need "proof".

Blessed are they who have not seen, yet, believe.

No such thing as beyond our level of comprehension.That is a dull self-created superstition for manipulative purposes.That is simply saying we are not smart enough, don`t try to be smarter than us, even if those look smarter than us, they are reallly not..

I personally do not think of the Holy Eucharistic in barbaric terms.I think that the bread and wine simply receives divine properties that is all.. It is holy bread and wine, as simple as that.. I don`t have to complicate myself with idiotic immoral gymnastics.

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

We'd better look at the Holy Eucharist in philosophic terms... How on earth can we take something that has the potential of revealing a lot of splendour and beauty and turn it into something so dark and hideous?

« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 06:57:57 PM by Azul »

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

Azul, it would be easy to minimize the offense for you, either by reminding you that we are speaking here of the glorified, incorruptible body of the resurrected Christ or by appending the word "mystical" to the word "body." But I'm not sure if that would be good for you. The gospel is built upon the offense of our intellect, sensibilities, and pride. That the infinite, transcendent deity should become Man in the womb of the Virgin Mary, should live his life as an infant, child, adolescent, and be finally condemned as a criminal and nailed to a cross is offensive. Faith embraces the offense. By doing so we are conformed to the Crucified.

The Eucharist is offensive in precisely the same way. The Orthodox Church did not invent this offensiveness. It is grounded on the teachings of our Lord. I commend to your meditation and prayer the sixth chapter of John:

Quote

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Cannibalism was as scandalous to folks back in the 1st century as it is today. Jesus knew this. Yet he confronted his followers with this hard saying about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and he did not retract it when some of them abandoned him.

The problem was with the interpretation of the hearers.In the same chapter (John 6) , Jesus is saying what the true food and true drink are, to do the will of God, to do his work, to believe in Him, etc... John accentuates this allegories and points often to the idea of eating drinking as an allegorical spiritual action.. Those who heard the words took them literaly so they thought it was cannibalism... The problem was with their discernment.. But Jesus said that his words were spirit, and that the spirit is what matters...

I personally do not think of the Holy Eucharistic in barbaric terms.I think that the bread and wine simply receives divine properties that is all.. It is holy bread and wine, as simple as that.. I don`t have to complicate myself with idiotic immoral gymnastics.

I see two decisive problems with your formulation of the eucharistic presence:

1) It doesn't make sense of the Lord's words at the Last Supper: "This is my body." "This is my blood." Jesus did not say, "This bread is penetrated by the Spirit of God"--or any such words such as these. He identified the loaf with his body; he identified the cup of wine with his blood. Was Jesus merely speaking symbolically? The Church Fathers resisted mere symbolic interpretation of the dominical words.

2) It skips the human nature of Christ, which the body and blood signify. We are not saved by immediate participation in the divine energies. We are saved by union with Christ in his human nature and through incorporation into his human nature we are united to his divine nature. The Eucharist is life because it confers union with the God-Man. Deified bread eliminates the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ.

Your deified bread interpretation is simple and inoffensive, which is why it probably ain't true.

The problem was with the interpretation of the hearers.In the same chapter (John 6) , Jesus is saying what the true food and true drink are, to do the will of God, to do his work, to believe in Him, etc... John accentuates this allegories and points often to the idea of eating drinking as an allegorical spiritual action.. Those who heard the words took them literaly so they thought it was cannibalism... The problem was with their discernment.. But Jesus said that his words were spirit, and that the spirit is what matters...

And that is precisely how Zwingli interpreted John 6. I am almost tempted to refer you to the writings of Martin Luther in response to Zwingli, but I will resist, as this is an Orthodox forum.

What Church Fathers and authorities can you provide for your view? Or does that matter to you at this point?

The problem was with the interpretation of the hearers.In the same chapter (John 6) , Jesus is saying what the true food and true drink are, to do the will of God, to do his work, to believe in Him, etc... John accentuates this allegories and points often to the idea of eating drinking as an allegorical spiritual action.. Those who heard the words took them literaly so they thought it was cannibalism... The problem was with their discernment.. But Jesus said that his words were spirit, and that the spirit is what matters...

And that is precisely how Zwingli interpreted John 6. I am almost tempted to refer you to the writings of Martin Luther in response to Zwingli, but I will resist, as this is an Orthodox forum.

What Church Fathers and authorities can you provide for your view? Or does that matter to you at this point?

Jesus said in John 6 that if anyone eats his flesh and drinks his blood has eternal life.Did Judas have eternal life?Does one who doesn`t believe but barely partakes of the Holy Eucharist somehow, has eternal life?

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

I personally do not think of the Holy Eucharistic in barbaric terms.I think that the bread and wine simply receives divine properties that is all.. It is holy bread and wine, as simple as that.. I don`t have to complicate myself with idiotic immoral gymnastics.

I see two decisive problems with your formulation of the eucharistic presence:

1) It doesn't make sense of the Lord's words at the Last Supper: "This is my body." "This is my blood." Jesus did not say, "This bread is penetrated by the Spirit of God"--or any such words such as these. He identified the loaf with his body; he identified the cup of wine with his blood. Was Jesus merely speaking symbolically? The Church Fathers resisted mere symbolic interpretation of the dominical words.

2) It skips the human nature of Christ, which the body and blood signify. We are not saved by immediate participation in the divine energies. We are saved by union with Christ in his human nature and through incorporation into his human nature we are united to his divine nature. The Eucharist is life because it confers union with the God-Man. Deified bread eliminates the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ.

Your deified bread interpretation is simple and inoffensive, which is why it probably ain't true.

I think there is a reason why Jesus was alongside with those who were eating at the Last Supper.It is you who are found in difficulty trying to explain how the literal flesh of Christ was in the Bread and how his literal blood was in the wine.Let it not be understood that I am denying the sacramental nature of the eucharist.. But i think the cannibalism stuff has gone too far.. I gave some quotes from Clement of Alexandria and Origen that i found spontaneously...

Jesus described food and drink all around the gospel... the drink that he was to give to the Samaritan woman at the well and to those at the feast of tabernacle in Jerusalem was the Holy Spirit... The food that he "ate" was doing the will of God.. In John 6:35 , Jesus says "“I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty." In one word he describes what it means to eat his flesh (come to him) and drink his blood (believe in Him)... i think all these to be expressions of the Eucharist..

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

The properties that were in Christ's both divine and human and the core of his being are present in the Holy Eucharist.They are present essentially and not literally.It is not the very blood and flesh of Christ but the essence of these, the essence of his life through which we can participate in His life and He in ours.Not shared directly cannibalistically but indirectly essentially through the work of the Holy Spirit... His life is actualized and activated in us essentially and through the essentials of his being we participate in his full hypostatical Personhood.

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.Mahatma Gandhi

“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.” - St Clement of Alexandria

“But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified…” - St Clement of Alexandria

“’I,’ says the Lord, ‘have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.’ You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically “a cup,” when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk.” (ibid) - St Clement of Alexandria

“Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His Own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.” - St Clement of Alexandria

“If, then, “the milk” is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “meat” to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction — the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence. “Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,” it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner.” (Stramata 5:10) - St Clement of Alexandria

“‘For if any one should turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away, and the Lord is the Spirit.’ Now some one when dealing with the passage might say, that just as ‘not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man,’ of even though it may be thought by the Jews to be defiled, so not that which entereth into the mouth sanctifieth the man, even though what is called the bread of the Lord may be thought by the simpler disciples to sanctify. And the saying is I think, not to be despised, and on this account, demands clear exposition, which seems to me to be thus; as it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt which defiles him that eateth, for ‘he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith,’ and as nothing is pure to him who is defiled and unbelieving, not in itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not, in its own nature, sanctify him who uses it, for, if this were so, it would sanctify even him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord, and no one on account of this food would become weak or sickly or asleep for something of this kind Paul represented in saying, ‘For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few sleep.’ And in the case of the bread of the Lord, accordingly, there is advantage to him who uses it, when with undefiled mind and pure conscience he partakes of the bread. And so neither by not eating, I mean by the very fact that we do not eat of the bread which has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, are we deprived of any good thing, nor by eating are we the better by any good thing; for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions; so that such is the meaning of what is said by Paul, ‘For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.’” - Origen

What do you hope to accomplish by just throwing out these patristic quotes without establishing any context for them and without explaining how they support your point?